* [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener
@ 2009-12-31 2:52 Xiaotian Feng
2010-01-04 7:12 ` Nikola Ciprich
2010-01-05 23:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Xiaotian Feng @ 2009-12-31 2:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-nfs
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, Xiaotian Feng, J. Bruce Fields, Neil Brown,
Trond Myklebust, David S. Miller
There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!"
socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected.
This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c],
when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED.
And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c]
if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
<snip>
newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
<snip>
So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE.
Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close
processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this
warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should
close it, not accpet then close.
Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com>
Cc: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
@@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout)
spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock);
len = 0;
- if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
+ if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags) &&
+ !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
struct svc_xprt *newxpt;
newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
if (newxpt) {
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener
2009-12-31 2:52 [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener Xiaotian Feng
@ 2010-01-04 7:12 ` Nikola Ciprich
2010-01-05 23:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nikola Ciprich @ 2010-01-04 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xiaotian Feng
Cc: linux-nfs, netdev, linux-kernel, J. Bruce Fields, Neil Brown,
Trond Myklebust, David S. Miller,
nikola.ciprich-Jp3n8lUXroTtwjQa/ONI9g, stable
(CCing stable@kernel.org)
Greg, once this patch is ACKed, can You also queue it for
2.6.32.x please?
thanks!
nik
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!"
> socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected.
> This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c],
> when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED.
>
> And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c]
>
> if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
> <snip>
> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
> <snip>
>
> So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE.
>
> Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close
> processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this
> warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should
> close it, not accpet then close.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com>
> Cc: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
> Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> ---
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout)
> spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock);
>
> len = 0;
> - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
> + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags) &&
> + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
> struct svc_xprt *newxpt;
> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
> if (newxpt) {
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
-------------------------------------
Ing. Nikola CIPRICH
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28. rijna 168, 709 01 Ostrava
tel.: +420 596 603 142
fax: +420 596 621 273
mobil: +420 777 093 799
www.linuxbox.cz
mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: servis-Jp3n8lUXroTtwjQa/ONI9g@public.gmane.org
-------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener
2009-12-31 2:52 [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener Xiaotian Feng
2010-01-04 7:12 ` Nikola Ciprich
@ 2010-01-05 23:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-01-06 9:07 ` Xiaotian Feng
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2010-01-05 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xiaotian Feng
Cc: linux-nfs, netdev, linux-kernel, Neil Brown, Trond Myklebust,
David S. Miller
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!"
> socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected.
> This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c],
> when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED.
>
> And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c]
>
> if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
> <snip>
> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
> <snip>
>
> So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE.
>
> Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close
> processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this
> warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should
> close it, not accpet then close.
The logic here seems unnecessarily complicated now, but as a minimal
fix, this seems fine.
Is the *only* justification for this to silence this warning, or is
there some more serious problem I'm missing?
--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com>
> Cc: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
> Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> ---
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout)
> spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock);
>
> len = 0;
> - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
> + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags) &&
> + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) {
> struct svc_xprt *newxpt;
> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
> if (newxpt) {
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener
2010-01-05 23:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
@ 2010-01-06 9:07 ` Xiaotian Feng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Xiaotian Feng @ 2010-01-06 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J. Bruce Fields
Cc: linux-nfs, netdev, linux-kernel, Neil Brown, Trond Myklebust,
David S. Miller
On 01/06/2010 07:01 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
>> There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!"
>> socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected.
>> This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c],
>> when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED.
>>
>> And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c]
>>
>> if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER,&xprt->xpt_flags)) {
>> <snip>
>> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
>> <snip>
>>
>> So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE.
>>
>> Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close
>> processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this
>> warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should
>> close it, not accpet then close.
>
> The logic here seems unnecessarily complicated now, but as a minimal
> fix, this seems fine.
>
> Is the *only* justification for this to silence this warning, or is
> there some more serious problem I'm missing?
If a xprt->xpt_flags has XPT_CLOSE & XPT_LISTENER, kernel will accept it
first,
and svc_xprt_received(xptr) no mater xpo_accept is suceed or failed,
then svc_delete_xprt(xprt).
I'm not sure what will happened between the svc_xprt_received and
svc_delete_xprt, there isn't any
lock to protect it.
>
> --b.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@redhat.com>
>> Cc: J. Bruce Fields<bfields@fieldses.org>
>> Cc: Neil Brown<neilb@suse.de>
>> Cc: Trond Myklebust<Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
>> Cc: David S. Miller<davem@davemloft.net>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
>> index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
>> @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout)
>> spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock);
>>
>> len = 0;
>> - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER,&xprt->xpt_flags)) {
>> + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER,&xprt->xpt_flags)&&
>> + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE,&xprt->xpt_flags)) {
>> struct svc_xprt *newxpt;
>> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt);
>> if (newxpt) {
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-06 9:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-12-31 2:52 [PATCH] sunrpc: fix peername failed on closed listener Xiaotian Feng
2010-01-04 7:12 ` Nikola Ciprich
2010-01-05 23:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-01-06 9:07 ` Xiaotian Feng
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).