The test fails on v5.13-rc5 and old kernels. Because the second session
doesn't send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before attempting to do a non-reclaim
open. So the server returns NFS4ERR_GRACE instead of NFS4_OK.
# ./testserver.py ${server_IP}:/nfsroot --rundeps COUR2
INFO :rpc.poll:got connection from ('127.0.0.1', 39206), assigned to
fd=5
INFO :rpc.thread:Called connect(('193.168.140.239', 2049))
INFO :rpc.poll:Adding 6 generated by another thread
INFO :test.env:Created client to 193.168.140.239, 2049
INFO :test.env:Called do_readdir()
INFO :test.env:do_readdir() = [entry4(cookie=512,
name=b'COUR2_1623055313', attrs={})]
fileb'COUR2_1623119443'created by sess1
INFO :test.env:Sleeping for 22 seconds: twice the lease period
INFO :test.env:Woke up
session created
**************************************************
COUR2 st_courtesy.testLockSleepLock :
FAILURE
OP_OPEN should return NFS4_OK, instead got
NFS4ERR_GRACE
**************************************************
Command line asked for 1 of 255 tests
Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 0 Passed
RFC5661, page 567:
"Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned."
Send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before the file open to let the test pass.
Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
---
nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
index dd911a37772d..3478a9d93dbf 100644
--- a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
+++ b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
@@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ def testLockSleepLock(t, env):
c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
sess2 = c2.create_session()
+ res = sess2.compound([op.reclaim_complete(FALSE)])
+ check(res)
+
res = open_file(sess2, env.testname(t), access=OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
check(res)
--
2.30.1
On 10/06/2021 2:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
> The test fails on v5.13-rc5 and old kernels. Because the second session
> doesn't send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before attempting to do a non-reclaim
> open. So the server returns NFS4ERR_GRACE instead of NFS4_OK.
Thanks.
I suppose the problem here is that we're trying to pretend this is two
separate clients, but the server sees it as a single client getting a
new client id?
thanks,
calum.
>
> # ./testserver.py ${server_IP}:/nfsroot --rundeps COUR2
> INFO :rpc.poll:got connection from ('127.0.0.1', 39206), assigned to
> fd=5
> INFO :rpc.thread:Called connect(('193.168.140.239', 2049))
> INFO :rpc.poll:Adding 6 generated by another thread
> INFO :test.env:Created client to 193.168.140.239, 2049
> INFO :test.env:Called do_readdir()
> INFO :test.env:do_readdir() = [entry4(cookie=512,
> name=b'COUR2_1623055313', attrs={})]
> fileb'COUR2_1623119443'created by sess1
> INFO :test.env:Sleeping for 22 seconds: twice the lease period
> INFO :test.env:Woke up
> session created
> **************************************************
> COUR2 st_courtesy.testLockSleepLock :
> FAILURE
> OP_OPEN should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> NFS4ERR_GRACE
> **************************************************
> Command line asked for 1 of 255 tests
> Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 0 Passed
>
> RFC5661, page 567:
> "Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
> first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
> RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
> locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
> the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned."
>
> Send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before the file open to let the test pass.
> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
> ---
> nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> index dd911a37772d..3478a9d93dbf 100644
> --- a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> +++ b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> @@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ def testLockSleepLock(t, env):
> c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
> sess2 = c2.create_session()
>
> + res = sess2.compound([op.reclaim_complete(FALSE)])
> + check(res)
> +
> res = open_file(sess2, env.testname(t), access=OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
> check(res)
>
>
On 10/06/2021 2:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
> The test fails on v5.13-rc5 and old kernels. Because the second session
> doesn't send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before attempting to do a non-reclaim
> open. So the server returns NFS4ERR_GRACE instead of NFS4_OK.
>
> # ./testserver.py ${server_IP}:/nfsroot --rundeps COUR2
> INFO :rpc.poll:got connection from ('127.0.0.1', 39206), assigned to
> fd=5
> INFO :rpc.thread:Called connect(('193.168.140.239', 2049))
> INFO :rpc.poll:Adding 6 generated by another thread
> INFO :test.env:Created client to 193.168.140.239, 2049
> INFO :test.env:Called do_readdir()
> INFO :test.env:do_readdir() = [entry4(cookie=512,
> name=b'COUR2_1623055313', attrs={})]
> fileb'COUR2_1623119443'created by sess1
> INFO :test.env:Sleeping for 22 seconds: twice the lease period
> INFO :test.env:Woke up
> session created
> **************************************************
> COUR2 st_courtesy.testLockSleepLock :
> FAILURE
> OP_OPEN should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> NFS4ERR_GRACE
> **************************************************
> Command line asked for 1 of 255 tests
> Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 0 Passed
>
> RFC5661, page 567:
> "Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
> first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
> RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
> locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
> the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned."
>
> Send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before the file open to let the test pass.
> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
> ---
> nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> index dd911a37772d..3478a9d93dbf 100644
> --- a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> +++ b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> @@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ def testLockSleepLock(t, env):
> c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
> sess2 = c2.create_session()
>
> + res = sess2.compound([op.reclaim_complete(FALSE)])
> + check(res)
> +
> res = open_file(sess2, env.testname(t), access=OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
> check(res)
>
>
I'd still like to check whether this is the right place to fix this.
Initially, I was confused as to why the first client "c1" doesn't face
the same issue. A network trace shows that a RECLAIM_COMPLETE is indeed
sent for c1, despite not appearing explicitly in testLockSleepLock().
Whereas one isn't sent for c2, hence the problem.
This is probably because c1 is initialised with:
61 sess1 = env.c1.new_client_session(env.testname(t))
and c2 with:
74 c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
75 sess2 = c2.create_session()
The c1 case results in a RECLAIM_COMPLETE, but the c2 case does not.
I'm not yet sure whether that ought to be done in
new_client()/create_session(). If so, then there would be no need to add
it explicitly here.
[I suspect this was missed in my testing, since the Solaris server I
used may be less strict about requiring the RECLAIM_COMPLETE]
I'll look into this more and report asap.
thanks again,
calum.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:50:34PM +0100, Calum Mackay wrote:
> On 10/06/2021 2:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >The test fails on v5.13-rc5 and old kernels. Because the second session
> >doesn't send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before attempting to do a non-reclaim
> >open. So the server returns NFS4ERR_GRACE instead of NFS4_OK.
> >
> > # ./testserver.py ${server_IP}:/nfsroot --rundeps COUR2
> > INFO :rpc.poll:got connection from ('127.0.0.1', 39206), assigned to
> > fd=5
> > INFO :rpc.thread:Called connect(('193.168.140.239', 2049))
> > INFO :rpc.poll:Adding 6 generated by another thread
> > INFO :test.env:Created client to 193.168.140.239, 2049
> > INFO :test.env:Called do_readdir()
> > INFO :test.env:do_readdir() = [entry4(cookie=512,
> > name=b'COUR2_1623055313', attrs={})]
> > fileb'COUR2_1623119443'created by sess1
> > INFO :test.env:Sleeping for 22 seconds: twice the lease period
> > INFO :test.env:Woke up
> > session created
> > **************************************************
> > COUR2 st_courtesy.testLockSleepLock :
> > FAILURE
> > OP_OPEN should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> > NFS4ERR_GRACE
> > **************************************************
> > Command line asked for 1 of 255 tests
> > Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 0 Passed
> >
> >RFC5661, page 567:
> >"Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
> >first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
> >RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
> >locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
> >the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned."
> >
> >Send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before the file open to let the test pass.
> >Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
> >---
> > nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> >index dd911a37772d..3478a9d93dbf 100644
> >--- a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> >+++ b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> >@@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ def testLockSleepLock(t, env):
> > c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
> > sess2 = c2.create_session()
> >+ res = sess2.compound([op.reclaim_complete(FALSE)])
> >+ check(res)
> >+
> > res = open_file(sess2, env.testname(t), access=OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
> > check(res)
> >
>
> I'd still like to check whether this is the right place to fix this.
>
> Initially, I was confused as to why the first client "c1" doesn't
> face the same issue. A network trace shows that a RECLAIM_COMPLETE
> is indeed sent for c1, despite not appearing explicitly in
> testLockSleepLock(). Whereas one isn't sent for c2, hence the
> problem.
>
> This is probably because c1 is initialised with:
>
> 61 sess1 = env.c1.new_client_session(env.testname(t))
>
>
> and c2 with:
>
> 74 c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
> 75 sess2 = c2.create_session()
>
>
> The c1 case results in a RECLAIM_COMPLETE, but the c2 case does not.
>
> I'm not yet sure whether that ought to be done in
> new_client()/create_session(). If so, then there would be no need to
> add it explicitly here.
There's definitely cases where clients want to be able to create a new
session without sending a new RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
Any reason we can't replace those two lines by a single
new_client_session()? I'd do either that or just add the explicit
RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
> [I suspect this was missed in my testing, since the Solaris server I
> used may be less strict about requiring the RECLAIM_COMPLETE]
That's a server bug:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5661#page-173
... NFS4ERR_GRACE must always be returned to clients attempting
a non-reclaim lock request before doing their own global
RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
I've complained about it before. I had some idea it'd been fixed, maybe
not.
--b.
On 15/06/2021 3:47 pm, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:50:34PM +0100, Calum Mackay wrote:
>> On 10/06/2021 2:01 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> The test fails on v5.13-rc5 and old kernels. Because the second session
>>> doesn't send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before attempting to do a non-reclaim
>>> open. So the server returns NFS4ERR_GRACE instead of NFS4_OK.
>>>
>>> # ./testserver.py ${server_IP}:/nfsroot --rundeps COUR2
>>> INFO :rpc.poll:got connection from ('127.0.0.1', 39206), assigned to
>>> fd=5
>>> INFO :rpc.thread:Called connect(('193.168.140.239', 2049))
>>> INFO :rpc.poll:Adding 6 generated by another thread
>>> INFO :test.env:Created client to 193.168.140.239, 2049
>>> INFO :test.env:Called do_readdir()
>>> INFO :test.env:do_readdir() = [entry4(cookie=512,
>>> name=b'COUR2_1623055313', attrs={})]
>>> fileb'COUR2_1623119443'created by sess1
>>> INFO :test.env:Sleeping for 22 seconds: twice the lease period
>>> INFO :test.env:Woke up
>>> session created
>>> **************************************************
>>> COUR2 st_courtesy.testLockSleepLock :
>>> FAILURE
>>> OP_OPEN should return NFS4_OK, instead got
>>> NFS4ERR_GRACE
>>> **************************************************
>>> Command line asked for 1 of 255 tests
>>> Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 0 Passed
>>>
>>> RFC5661, page 567:
>>> "Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
>>> first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
>>> RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
>>> locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
>>> the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned."
>>>
>>> Send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before the file open to let the test pass.
>>> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
>>> index dd911a37772d..3478a9d93dbf 100644
>>> --- a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
>>> +++ b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
>>> @@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ def testLockSleepLock(t, env):
>>> c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
>>> sess2 = c2.create_session()
>>> + res = sess2.compound([op.reclaim_complete(FALSE)])
>>> + check(res)
>>> +
>>> res = open_file(sess2, env.testname(t), access=OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
>>> check(res)
>>>
>>
>> I'd still like to check whether this is the right place to fix this.
>>
>> Initially, I was confused as to why the first client "c1" doesn't
>> face the same issue. A network trace shows that a RECLAIM_COMPLETE
>> is indeed sent for c1, despite not appearing explicitly in
>> testLockSleepLock(). Whereas one isn't sent for c2, hence the
>> problem.
>>
>> This is probably because c1 is initialised with:
>>
>> 61 sess1 = env.c1.new_client_session(env.testname(t))
>>
>>
>> and c2 with:
>>
>> 74 c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
>> 75 sess2 = c2.create_session()
>>
>>
>> The c1 case results in a RECLAIM_COMPLETE, but the c2 case does not.
>>
>> I'm not yet sure whether that ought to be done in
>> new_client()/create_session(). If so, then there would be no need to
>> add it explicitly here.
>
> There's definitely cases where clients want to be able to create a new
> session without sending a new RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
thanks Bruce; yes, I wondered.
> Any reason we can't replace those two lines by a single
> new_client_session()?
I wasn't quite sure on the semantics of those calls.
We want what appears to the server to be a new client c2, not a new
session from an existing client c1. I wasn't sure whether
new_client_session() would give us that?
Put alternatively, what is the difference between new_client_session and
new_client/new_session? Is it just a different granularity, and to give
the option e.g. of not using RECLAIM_COMPLETE?
I'll have a further look…
thanks very much,
calum.
> I'd do either that or just add the explicit
> RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
>
>> [I suspect this was missed in my testing, since the Solaris server I
>> used may be less strict about requiring the RECLAIM_COMPLETE]
>
> That's a server bug:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5661#page-173
>
> ... NFS4ERR_GRACE must always be returned to clients attempting
> a non-reclaim lock request before doing their own global
> RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
>
> I've complained about it before. I had some idea it'd been fixed, maybe
> not.
>
> --b.
>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 04:38:15PM +0100, Calum Mackay wrote:
> I wasn't quite sure on the semantics of those calls.
>
> We want what appears to the server to be a new client c2, not a new
> session from an existing client c1. I wasn't sure whether
> new_client_session() would give us that?
Yes, it gets you both a new client and a new session for that client.
It does all the stuff you need to get a new client that you can actually
use for normal operations, so it should be the default unless you need
finer control.
(Also, *eventually*, I want to port all the 4.0 tests to the 4.1 code
and eliminate the separate 4.0/4.1 directories. new_client_session will
then do either exchange_id+create_session+reclaim_complete or
setclientid+setclient_confirm depending on minor version.)
Anyway, so the names are totally unhelpful. Maybe we should reanme
new_client to exchange_id and new_client_session to just new_client.
--b.
On 15/06/2021 4:50 pm, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 04:38:15PM +0100, Calum Mackay wrote:
>> I wasn't quite sure on the semantics of those calls.
>>
>> We want what appears to the server to be a new client c2, not a new
>> session from an existing client c1. I wasn't sure whether
>> new_client_session() would give us that?
>
> Yes, it gets you both a new client and a new session for that client.
> It does all the stuff you need to get a new client that you can actually
> use for normal operations, so it should be the default unless you need
> finer control.
Perfect, thanks Bruce.
I'll test that, and submit a new patch for this issue
> (Also, *eventually*, I want to port all the 4.0 tests to the 4.1 code
> and eliminate the separate 4.0/4.1 directories. new_client_session will
> then do either exchange_id+create_session+reclaim_complete or
> setclientid+setclient_confirm depending on minor version.)
>
> Anyway, so the names are totally unhelpful. Maybe we should reanme
> new_client to exchange_id and new_client_session to just new_client.
sounds good.
cheers,
calum.