From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Yong Sun <yosun@suse.com>
Subject: Re: pynfs: [NFS 4.0] SEC7, LOCK24 test failures
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 11:51:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yek+t754lmv5lCQI@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <164248153844.24166.16775550865302060652@noble.neil.brown.name>
Hi Neil,
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:01:08PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > LOCK24 st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock : FAILURE
> > > OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> > > NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID
> > I suspect the server's actually OK here, but I need to look more
> > closely.
> I agree.
> I think this patch fixes the test.
> NeilBrown
> From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:50:37 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix NFSv4.0 LOCK24 test
> Only the first lock request for a given open-owner can use lock_file.
> Subsequent lock request must use relock_file.
Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Thanks!
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> ---
> nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
> index 468672403ffe..db08fbeedac4 100644
> --- a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
> +++ b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
> @@ -886,6 +886,7 @@ class open_sequence:
> self.client = client
> self.owner = owner
> self.lockowner = lockowner
> + self.lockseq = 0
> def open(self, access):
> self.fh, self.stateid = self.client.create_confirm(self.owner,
> access=access,
> @@ -899,15 +900,21 @@ class open_sequence:
> def close(self):
> self.client.close_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid)
> def lock(self, type):
> - res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid,
> - type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner)
> + if self.lockseq == 0:
> + res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid,
> + type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner)
> + else:
> + res = self.client.relock_file(self.lockseq, self.fh, self.lockstateid,
> + type=type)
> check(res)
> if res.status == NFS4_OK:
> self.lockstateid = res.lockid
> + self.lockseq = self.lockseq + 1
I'd just: self.lockseq += 1
(supported even on python 2.x)
> def unlock(self):
> res = self.client.unlock_file(1, self.fh, self.lockstateid)
> if res.status == NFS4_OK:
> self.lockstateid = res.lockid
> + self.lockseq = self.lockseq + 1
And here.
Kind regards,
Petr
> def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env):
> """Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-20 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-01 14:01 pynfs: [NFS 4.0] SEC7, LOCK24 test failures Petr Vorel
2021-06-01 15:31 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-06-02 7:58 ` Petr Vorel
2022-01-18 4:52 ` NeilBrown
2022-01-20 10:51 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2022-01-25 22:46 ` Bruce Fields
2022-01-25 23:48 ` NeilBrown
2022-01-26 0:14 ` Frank Filz
2022-04-01 13:30 ` Petr Vorel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yek+t754lmv5lCQI@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=yosun@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox