Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187667-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
	Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
	Kingdom.
	Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <536b0f03-db96-49a3-93de-d9ea835e8785@talpey.com>
References: <536b0f03-db96-49a3-93de-d9ea835e8785@talpey.com> <469451.1716418742@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
    Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
    Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
    Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
    Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
    netfs@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
    linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cifs: Fix credit handling in cifs_io_subrequest cleanup
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <581216.1716475935.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:52:15 +0100
Message-ID: <581217.1716475935@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> wrote:

> From a protocol standpoint it's correct to reserve the credits while the
> operation is in flight. But from a code standpoint it seems risky to
> stop accounting for them. What if the operation is canceled, or times
> out?

No idea, TBH - SMB credits wrangling isn't my area of expertise.  Note the
patch is superfluous as smb2_readv/writev_callback() clear the credits at the
end; worse, it's actually wrong as we're not allowed to touch [rw]data after
calling ->async_readv()/->async_writev().

> I'd quibble with the assertion that the server will "give us new credits
> in the response". The number of granted credits is always the server's
> decision, not guaranteed by the protocol (except for certain edge
> conditions).

It does give us new credits in the response, doesn't it?  In
hdr.CreditRequest - though I suppose this could be zero.

> I guess I'd suggest a deeper review by someone familiar with the
> mechanics of fs/smb/client credit accounting. It might be ok!

I've given Steve a patch to try and find where the double add occurs.

David