Re: [PATCH 1/9] nfsd: hold ->cl_lock for hash_delegation_locked()

[Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 08:37:55AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 13:18 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > The protocol for creating a new state in nfsd is to allocated the state
> > > leaving it largely uninitialised, add that state to the ->cl_stateids
> > > idr so as to reserve a state id, then complete initialisation of the
> > > state and only set ->sc_type to non-zero once the state is fully
> > > initialised.
> > > 
> > > If a state is found in the idr with ->sc_type == 0, it is ignored.
> > > The ->cl_lock list is used to avoid races - it is held while checking
> > > sc_type during lookup, and held when a non-zero value is stored in
> > > ->sc_type.
> > > 
> > > ... except... hash_delegation_locked() finalises the initialisation of a
> > > delegation state, but does NOT hold ->cl_lock.
> > > 
> > > So this patch takes ->cl_lock at the appropriate time w.r.t other locks,
> > > and so ensures there are no races (which are extremely unlikely in any
> > > case).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > > index 65fd5510323a..6368788a7d4e 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > > @@ -1317,6 +1317,7 @@ hash_delegation_locked(struct nfs4_delegation *dp, struct nfs4_file *fp)
> > >  
> > >  	lockdep_assert_held(&state_lock);
> > >  	lockdep_assert_held(&fp->fi_lock);
> > > +	lockdep_assert_held(&clp->cl_lock);
> > >  
> > >  	if (nfs4_delegation_exists(clp, fp))
> > >  		return -EAGAIN;
> > > @@ -5609,12 +5610,14 @@ nfs4_set_delegation(struct nfsd4_open *open, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp,
> > >  		goto out_unlock;
> > >  
> > >  	spin_lock(&state_lock);
> > > +	spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > >  	spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
> > >  	if (fp->fi_had_conflict)
> > >  		status = -EAGAIN;
> > >  	else
> > >  		status = hash_delegation_locked(dp, fp);
> > >  	spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
> > > +	spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > >  	spin_unlock(&state_lock);
> > >  
> > >  	if (status)
> > 
> > I know it's (supposedly) an unlikely race, but should we send this to
> > stable?
> 
> I don't know.  Once upon a time, "stable" meant something.  There was a
> clear list of rules.  Those seem to have been torn up.  Now it seems to
> be whatever some machine-learning tool chooses.
> If that tool chooses this patch (which I suspect it will), I won't
> object.  But I don't think it is worth encouraging it.

We've asked Sasha and GregKH not to use AUTOSEL on NFSD patches,
promising that we will explicitly mark anything that should be
back-ported.


-- 
Chuck Lever