linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>,
	chuck.lever@oracle.com,  neil@brown.name, okorniev@redhat.com,
	Dai.Ngo@oracle.com, tom@talpey.com,  linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: yukuai1@huaweicloud.com, houtao1@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
	 yangerkun@huawei.com, lilingfeng@huaweicloud.com,
	zhangjian496@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: remove long-standing revoked delegations by force
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 06:21:39 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a103653bc0dd231b897ffcd074c1f15151562502.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250902022237.1488709-1-lilingfeng3@huawei.com>

On Tue, 2025-09-02 at 10:22 +0800, Li Lingfeng wrote:
> When file access conflicts occur between clients, the server recalls
> delegations. If the client holding delegation fails to return it after
> a recall, nfs4_laundromat adds the delegation to cl_revoked list.
> This causes subsequent SEQUENCE operations to set the
> SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED flag, forcing the client to
> validate all delegations and return the revoked one.
> 
> However, if the client fails to return the delegation due to a timeout
> after receiving the recall or a server bug, the delegation remains in the
> server's cl_revoked list. The client marks it revoked and won't find it
> upon detecting SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED. This leads to a loop:
> the server persistently sets SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED, and the
> client repeatedly tests all delegations, severely impacting performance
> when numerous delegations exist.
> 

It is a performance impact, but I don't get the "loop" here. Are you
saying that this problem compounds itself? That testing all delegations
causes others to be revoked?

> Since abnormal delegations are removed from flc_lease via nfs4_laundromat
> --> revoke_delegation --> destroy_unhashed_deleg -->
> nfs4_unlock_deleg_lease --> kernel_setlease, and do not block new open
> requests indefinitely, retaining such a delegation on the server is
> unnecessary.
> 
> Reported-by: Zhang Jian <zhangjian496@huawei.com>
> Fixes: 3bd64a5ba171 ("nfsd4: implement SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED")
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ff8debe9-6877-4cf7-ba29-fc98eae0ffa0@huawei.com/
> Signed-off-by: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 88c347957da5..aa65a685dbb9 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -4326,6 +4326,8 @@ nfsd4_sequence(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	int buflen;
>  	struct net *net = SVC_NET(rqstp);
>  	struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(net, nfsd_net_id);
> +	struct list_head *pos, *next;
> +	struct nfs4_delegation *dp;
>  
>  	if (resp->opcnt != 1)
>  		return nfserr_sequence_pos;
> @@ -4470,6 +4472,15 @@ nfsd4_sequence(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	default:
>  		seq->status_flags = 0;
>  	}
> +	if (!list_empty(&clp->cl_revoked)) {
> +		list_for_each_safe(pos, next, &clp->cl_revoked) {
> +			dp = list_entry(pos, struct nfs4_delegation, dl_recall_lru);
> +			if (dp->dl_time < (ktime_get_boottime_seconds() - 2 * nn->nfsd4_lease)) {
> +				list_del_init(&dp->dl_recall_lru);
> +				nfs4_put_stid(&dp->dl_stid);
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
>  	if (!list_empty(&clp->cl_revoked))
>  		seq->status_flags |= SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED;
>  	if (atomic_read(&clp->cl_admin_revoked))

This seems like a violation of the spec. AIUI, the server is required
to hang onto a record of the delegation until the client does the
TEST_STATEID/FREE_STATEID dance to remove it. Just discarding them like
this seems wrong.

Should we instead just administratively evict the client since it's
clearly not behaving right in this case?
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-02 10:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-02  2:22 [PATCH] nfsd: remove long-standing revoked delegations by force Li Lingfeng
2025-09-02 10:21 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2025-09-02 12:10   ` Li Lingfeng
2025-09-02 12:43     ` Benjamin Coddington
2025-09-02 13:08       ` Li Lingfeng
2025-09-03  3:46       ` zhangjian (CG)
2025-09-03  6:45         ` Li Lingfeng
2025-09-03 10:06           ` zhangjian (CG)
2025-09-03 11:40             ` Li Lingfeng
2025-09-02 13:40     ` Jeff Layton
2025-09-02 14:21       ` Li Lingfeng
2025-09-02 14:29         ` Jeff Layton
2025-09-03  1:34           ` Li Lingfeng

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=a103653bc0dd231b897ffcd074c1f15151562502.camel@kernel.org \
    --to=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=Dai.Ngo@oracle.com \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
    --cc=lilingfeng3@huawei.com \
    --cc=lilingfeng@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neil@brown.name \
    --cc=okorniev@redhat.com \
    --cc=tom@talpey.com \
    --cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=zhangjian496@huawei.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).