Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:41:18 +0100
From:   Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
To:     ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
CC:     Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
        samba-technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>, kernel <kernel@axis.com>,
        Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break
Message-ID: <20210309134118.GA31041@axis.com>
References: <20210305094107.13743-1-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <CANT5p=rB2=DvjtpmVy803emWpuzsy-C2+d4wqQ5g_9fJ8+a5Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN05THQtb5RY2ye7nkyWBjrXS+=usZCxUM7jBQG+JEpg_TQQTA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAN05THQtb5RY2ye7nkyWBjrXS+=usZCxUM7jBQG+JEpg_TQQTA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 01:05:11AM +0100, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 8:52 PM Shyam Prasad N via samba-technical
> <samba-technical@lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > The reason for rejecting the request maybe a number of things like:
> > corrupted request, stale request (for some old session), or for a
> > wrong handle.
> > I don't think we should treat any of these cases as a success.
> 
> I agree with Shyam here.
> We shouldn't change the return value to pretend success just to
> suppress a warning.

Thank you all for your comments.  I see that everyone agrees that the
error print is useful for SMB2, so I will drop this patch.

> However, if it is common to trigger with false positives we might want
> to something to prevent it from
> spamming the logs.
> These messages could be useful if we encounter bugs in our leasing
> code, or bugs in server
> lease code, so we should't throw them away completely. But if false
> positives are common ...
> 
> Some thoughts I and Stever brainstormed about could be to change the code in the
> demiltiplex thread where we currently dump the packets that were "invalid"
> to maybe:
> *  log once as VFS and then log any future ones as FYI
> * log once as VFS and then only make the others available via dynamic
> trace points
> * rate limit it so we only log it once every n minutes?  (this is overkill?)

Thank you for the suggestions.  In my case, I've only received some
reports of this error being emitted very rarely (couple of times a month
in our stability tests).  Right now it looks like the problem may only
be with a particular NAS, and we're looking into triggering oplock
breaks more often and catching the problem with some more logging.