In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
These all affect the same fh/stateid:
116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
have write access.
Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
==========
116 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.163242000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | PUTFH | OPEN DH: 0x8b975243/ | ACCESS FH: 0x8b975243, [Check: RD MD XT XE] | GETATTR FH: 0x8b975243
117 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.163289000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | PUTFH | OPEN_DOWNGRADE | GETATTR FH: 0x8b975243
...
121 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.163426000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 117) SEQUENCE | PUTFH | OPEN_DOWNGRADE | GETATTR
122 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.163443000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 116) SEQUENCE | PUTFH | OPEN StateID: 0x1f68 | ACCESS, [Allowed: RD MD XT XE] | GETATTR
...
155 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165286000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | TEST_STATEID
156 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165417000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 155) SEQUENCE | TEST_STATEID
157 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165469000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | PUTFH | WRITE StateID: 0x072b Offset: 0 Len: 289 | GETATTR FH: 0x8b975243
158 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165597000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 157) SEQUENCE | PUTFH | WRITE Status: NFS4ERR_OPENMODE
159 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165713000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | TEST_STATEID
160 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165839000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 159) SEQUENCE | TEST_STATEID
161 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.165913000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | PUTFH | WRITE StateID: 0x072b Offset: 0 Len: 289 | GETATTR FH: 0x8b975243
162 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.166040000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 161) SEQUENCE | PUTFH | WRITE Status: NFS4ERR_OPENMODE
163 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.166153000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | TEST_STATEID
164 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.166284000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 163) SEQUENCE | TEST_STATEID
165 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.166335000 EDT V4 Call SEQUENCE | PUTFH | WRITE StateID: 0x072b Offset: 0 Len: 289 | GETATTR FH: 0x8b975243
166 Sep 3, 2015 15:07:04.166463000 EDT V4 Reply (Call In 165) SEQUENCE | PUTFH | WRITE Status: NFS4ERR_OPENMODE
Thanks,
Andy
--
Andrew W. Elble
[email protected]
Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead
Rochester Institute of Technology
PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912
Or, put into really half-baked (I've only spent an evening looking at
nfs client code) terms, isn't something like this required?
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 11fe5d7..15b8150 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -1923,8 +1923,16 @@ static void nfs4_open_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
renew_lease(data->o_res.server, data->timestamp);
if (!(data->o_res.rflags & NFS4_OPEN_RESULT_CONFIRM))
nfs_confirm_seqid(&data->owner->so_seqid, 0);
+
+ if (nfs4_stateid_is_newer(&data->state->open_stateid, &data->o_res.stateid) &&
+ !can_open_cached(data->state, data->o_arg.fmode, data->o_arg.open_flags)) {
+ rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
+ goto out;
+ }
}
data->rpc_done = 1;
+out:
+ return;
}
static void nfs4_open_release(void *calldata)
--
Andrew W. Elble
[email protected]
Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead
Rochester Institute of Technology
PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
>
> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
>
> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
>
> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
>
> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> have write access.
>
> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
Bruce & Jeff,
Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
Cheers
Trond
+Bruce, +Jeff...
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
>> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
>> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
>>
>> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
>>
>> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
>> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
>>
>> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
>> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
>>
>> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
>> have write access.
>>
>> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
>
> Bruce & Jeff,
>
> Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
>
> Cheers
> Trond
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> +Bruce, +Jeff...
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> >>
> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> >>
> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> >>
> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> >>
> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> >> have write access.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> >
> > Bruce & Jeff,
> >
> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> >
The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
"The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
of OPEN processing done by the server."
If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
struct files after all.
Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +Bruce, +Jeff...
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
>> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
>> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
>> >>
>> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
>> >>
>> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
>> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
>> >>
>> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
>> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
>> >>
>> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
>> >> have write access.
>> >>
>> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
>> >
>> > Bruce & Jeff,
>> >
>> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
>> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
>> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
>> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
>> >
>
> The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
>
> The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
RFC5661, section 8.2.2
Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
one. In that case, the server is required to return
NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
indication that an upgrade had happened.
The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
seqid and zero?
> "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> of OPEN processing done by the server."
>
> If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
>
> We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> struct files after all.
Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
>
> Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
and for both operations to succeed.
Trond
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:49:35PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > +Bruce, +Jeff...
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> > >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> > >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> > >>
> > >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> > >>
> > >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> > >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> > >>
> > >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> > >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> > >>
> > >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> > >> have write access.
> > >>
> > >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> > >
> > > Bruce & Jeff,
> > >
> > > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> > >
>
> The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
>
> The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
>
> "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> of OPEN processing done by the server."
>
> If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
>
> We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh),
I thought that was required.
--b.
> or make
> update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> struct files after all.
>
> Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400
Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> +Bruce, +Jeff...
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> >> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> >> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> >> >>
> >> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> >> >>
> >> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> >> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> >> >>
> >> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> >> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> >> >>
> >> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> >> >> have write access.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> >> >
> >> > Bruce & Jeff,
> >> >
> >> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> >> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> >> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> >> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> >> >
> >
> > The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> > the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> > seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> > the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
> >
> > The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> > doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> > the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
>
> RFC5661, section 8.2.2
> Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
> stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
> sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
> wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
> be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
> sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
> value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
> one. In that case, the server is required to return
> NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
> and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
> value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
> with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
> parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
> knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
> the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
> upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
> indication that an upgrade had happened.
>
> The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
> not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
> OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
> seqid and zero?
>
> > "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> > one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> > client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> > of OPEN processing done by the server."
> >
> > If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
> >
> > We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> > update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> > locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> > if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> > struct files after all.
>
> Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
> a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
>
> >
> > Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> > handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> > one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> > still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
>
> No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
> OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
> the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
> and for both operations to succeed.
>
> Trond
In that case, the "simple" fix would be to add a mutex to
nfs4_ol_stateid. Lock that in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op, and ensure that
we unlock it after bumping the seqid (or on error).
Bruce, any thoughts?
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:18:01PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400
> Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +Bruce, +Jeff...
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> > >> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> > >> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> > >> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> > >> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> > >> >> have write access.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> > >> >
> > >> > Bruce & Jeff,
> > >> >
> > >> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > >> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > >> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > >> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> > >> >
> > >
> > > The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> > > the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> > > seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> > > the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
> > >
> > > The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> > > doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> > > the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
> >
> > RFC5661, section 8.2.2
> > Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
> > stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
> > sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
> > wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
> > be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
> > sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
> > value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
> > one. In that case, the server is required to return
> > NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
> > and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
> > value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
> > with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
> > parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
> > knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
> > the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
> > upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
> > indication that an upgrade had happened.
> >
> > The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
> > not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
> > OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
> > seqid and zero?
> >
> > > "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> > > one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> > > client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> > > of OPEN processing done by the server."
> > >
> > > If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
> > >
> > > We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> > > update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> > > locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> > > if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> > > struct files after all.
> >
> > Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
> > a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
> >
> > >
> > > Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> > > handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> > > one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> > > still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
> >
> > No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
> > the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
> > and for both operations to succeed.
> >
> > Trond
>
> In that case, the "simple" fix would be to add a mutex to
> nfs4_ol_stateid. Lock that in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op, and ensure that
> we unlock it after bumping the seqid (or on error).
>
> Bruce, any thoughts?
Why isn't nfsd4_cstate_assign_replay()/nfsd4_cstate_clear_replay()
already doing this with the so_replay.rp_mutex lock?
Looking at it.... OK, sorry, that's 4.0 only. I don't know if that
should be shared in the session case.
--b.
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:40:36 -0400
Bruce James Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:18:01PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400
> > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> > > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +Bruce, +Jeff...
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> > > >> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> > > >> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> > > >> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> > > >> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> > > >> >> have write access.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Bruce & Jeff,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > > >> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > > >> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > > >> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > > > The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> > > > the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> > > > seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> > > > the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
> > > >
> > > > The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> > > > doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> > > > the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
> > >
> > > RFC5661, section 8.2.2
> > > Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
> > > stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
> > > sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
> > > wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
> > > be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
> > > sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
> > > value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
> > > one. In that case, the server is required to return
> > > NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
> > > and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
> > > value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
> > > with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
> > > parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
> > > knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
> > > the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
> > > upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
> > > indication that an upgrade had happened.
> > >
> > > The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
> > > not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
> > > OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
> > > seqid and zero?
> > >
> > > > "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> > > > one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> > > > client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> > > > of OPEN processing done by the server."
> > > >
> > > > If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
> > > >
> > > > We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> > > > update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> > > > locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> > > > if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> > > > struct files after all.
> > >
> > > Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
> > > a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> > > > handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> > > > one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> > > > still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
> > >
> > > No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
> > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
> > > the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
> > > and for both operations to succeed.
> > >
> > > Trond
> >
> > In that case, the "simple" fix would be to add a mutex to
> > nfs4_ol_stateid. Lock that in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op, and ensure that
> > we unlock it after bumping the seqid (or on error).
> >
> > Bruce, any thoughts?
>
> Why isn't nfsd4_cstate_assign_replay()/nfsd4_cstate_clear_replay()
> already doing this with the so_replay.rp_mutex lock?
>
> Looking at it.... OK, sorry, that's 4.0 only. I don't know if that
> should be shared in the session case.
>
Yeah, that's probably a bit heavyweight for v4.1. That mutex is in the
stateowner struct. The same stateowner could be opening different
files, and we wouldn't want to serialize those. I think we'd need
something in the stateid struct itself.
Trond also pointed out that we don't really need to serialize OPEN
calls, so we might be best off with something like a rw semaphore. Take
the read lock in OPEN, and the write lock for OPEN_DOWNGRADE/CLOSE.
LOCK/LOCKU will also need similar treatment of course. I'm not sure
about LAYOUTGET/LAYOUTRETURN/CLOSE though.
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:00:37PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:40:36 -0400
> Bruce James Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:18:01PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400
> > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> > > > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +Bruce, +Jeff...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> > > > >> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> > > > >> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> > > > >> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> > > > >> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> > > > >> >> have write access.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Bruce & Jeff,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > > > >> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > > > >> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > > > >> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> > > > > the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> > > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> > > > > seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> > > > > the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> > > > > doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> > > > > the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
> > > >
> > > > RFC5661, section 8.2.2
> > > > Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
> > > > stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
> > > > sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
> > > > wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
> > > > be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
> > > > sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
> > > > value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
> > > > one. In that case, the server is required to return
> > > > NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
> > > > and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
> > > > value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
> > > > with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
> > > > parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
> > > > knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
> > > > the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
> > > > upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
> > > > indication that an upgrade had happened.
> > > >
> > > > The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
> > > > not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
> > > > OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
> > > > seqid and zero?
> > > >
> > > > > "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> > > > > one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> > > > > client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> > > > > of OPEN processing done by the server."
> > > > >
> > > > > If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
> > > > >
> > > > > We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> > > > > update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> > > > > locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> > > > > if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> > > > > struct files after all.
> > > >
> > > > Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
> > > > a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> > > > > handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> > > > > one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> > > > > still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
> > > >
> > > > No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
> > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
> > > > the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
> > > > and for both operations to succeed.
> > > >
> > > > Trond
> > >
> > > In that case, the "simple" fix would be to add a mutex to
> > > nfs4_ol_stateid. Lock that in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op, and ensure that
> > > we unlock it after bumping the seqid (or on error).
> > >
> > > Bruce, any thoughts?
> >
> > Why isn't nfsd4_cstate_assign_replay()/nfsd4_cstate_clear_replay()
> > already doing this with the so_replay.rp_mutex lock?
> >
> > Looking at it.... OK, sorry, that's 4.0 only. I don't know if that
> > should be shared in the session case.
> >
>
> Yeah, that's probably a bit heavyweight for v4.1. That mutex is in the
> stateowner struct. The same stateowner could be opening different
> files, and we wouldn't want to serialize those. I think we'd need
> something in the stateid struct itself.
>
> Trond also pointed out that we don't really need to serialize OPEN
> calls, so we might be best off with something like a rw semaphore. Take
> the read lock in OPEN, and the write lock for OPEN_DOWNGRADE/CLOSE.
> LOCK/LOCKU will also need similar treatment of course.
OK, I think I agree. LOCK and LOCKU both need exclusive locks, right?
> I'm not sure about LAYOUTGET/LAYOUTRETURN/CLOSE though.
Me neither.
--b.
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 17:39:07 -0400
Bruce James Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:00:37PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:40:36 -0400
> > Bruce James Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:18:01PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400
> > > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> > > > > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +Bruce, +Jeff...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> > > > > >> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> > > > > >> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> > > > > >> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> > > > > >> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> > > > > >> >> have write access.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Bruce & Jeff,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > > > > >> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > > > > >> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > > > > >> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> > > > > > the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> > > > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> > > > > > seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> > > > > > the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> > > > > > doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> > > > > > the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC5661, section 8.2.2
> > > > > Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
> > > > > stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
> > > > > sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
> > > > > wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
> > > > > be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
> > > > > sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
> > > > > value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
> > > > > one. In that case, the server is required to return
> > > > > NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
> > > > > and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
> > > > > value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
> > > > > with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
> > > > > parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
> > > > > knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
> > > > > the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
> > > > > upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
> > > > > indication that an upgrade had happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
> > > > > not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
> > > > > OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
> > > > > seqid and zero?
> > > > >
> > > > > > "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> > > > > > one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> > > > > > client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> > > > > > of OPEN processing done by the server."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> > > > > > update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> > > > > > locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> > > > > > if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> > > > > > struct files after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
> > > > > a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> > > > > > handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> > > > > > one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> > > > > > still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
> > > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
> > > > > the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
> > > > > and for both operations to succeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trond
> > > >
> > > > In that case, the "simple" fix would be to add a mutex to
> > > > nfs4_ol_stateid. Lock that in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op, and ensure that
> > > > we unlock it after bumping the seqid (or on error).
> > > >
> > > > Bruce, any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Why isn't nfsd4_cstate_assign_replay()/nfsd4_cstate_clear_replay()
> > > already doing this with the so_replay.rp_mutex lock?
> > >
> > > Looking at it.... OK, sorry, that's 4.0 only. I don't know if that
> > > should be shared in the session case.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, that's probably a bit heavyweight for v4.1. That mutex is in the
> > stateowner struct. The same stateowner could be opening different
> > files, and we wouldn't want to serialize those. I think we'd need
> > something in the stateid struct itself.
> >
> > Trond also pointed out that we don't really need to serialize OPEN
> > calls, so we might be best off with something like a rw semaphore. Take
> > the read lock in OPEN, and the write lock for OPEN_DOWNGRADE/CLOSE.
> > LOCK/LOCKU will also need similar treatment of course.
>
> OK, I think I agree. LOCK and LOCKU both need exclusive locks, right?
>
Right. Those can't really run in parallel.
> > I'm not sure about LAYOUTGET/LAYOUTRETURN/CLOSE though.
>
> Me neither.
>
Then we should probably start with the cases we do know, and then
extend the locking to those if it's required. I'll look at it when I
get time but it may be a bit...
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 17:39:07 -0400
Bruce James Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:00:37PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:40:36 -0400
> > Bruce James Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:18:01PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:01:54 -0400
> > > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:49:44 -0400
> > > > > > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +Bruce, +Jeff...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> In attempting to troubleshoot other issues, we've run into this race
> > > > > >> >> with 4.1.4 (both client and server) with a few cherry-picked patches
> > > > > >> >> from upstream. This is my attempt at a redacted packet-capture.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> These all affect the same fh/stateid:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 116 -> OPEN (will be an upgrade / for write)
> > > > > >> >> 117 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (to read for the existing stateid / seqid = 0x6
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 121 -> OPEN_DOWNGRADE (completed last / seqid = 0x8)
> > > > > >> >> 122 -> OPEN (completed first / seqid = 0x7)
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Attempts to write using that stateid fail because the stateid doesn't
> > > > > >> >> have write access.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Any thoughts? I can share more data from the capture if needed.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Bruce & Jeff,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Given that the client sent a non-zero seqid, why is the OPEN_DOWNGRADE
> > > > > >> > being executed after the OPEN here? Surely, if that is the case, the
> > > > > >> > server should be returning NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID and failing the
> > > > > >> > OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem there is that we do the seqid checks at the beginning of
> > > > > > the operation. In this case it's likely that it was 0x6 when the
> > > > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE started. The OPEN completed first though and bumped the
> > > > > > seqid, and then the downgrade finished and bumped it again. When we bump
> > > > > > the seqid we don't verify it against what came in originally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question is whether that's wrong from the POV of the spec. RFC5661
> > > > > > doesn't seem to explicitly require that we serialize such operations on
> > > > > > the server. The closest thing I can find is this in 3.3.12:
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC5661, section 8.2.2
> > > > > Except for layout stateids (Section 12.5.3), when a client sends a
> > > > > stateid to the server, it has two choices with regard to the seqid
> > > > > sent. It may set the seqid to zero to indicate to the server that it
> > > > > wishes the most up-to-date seqid for that stateid's "other" field to
> > > > > be used. This would be the common choice in the case of a stateid
> > > > > sent with a READ or WRITE operation. It also may set a non-zero
> > > > > value, in which case the server checks if that seqid is the correct
> > > > > one. In that case, the server is required to return
> > > > > NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID if the seqid is lower than the most current value
> > > > > and NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID if the seqid is greater than the most current
> > > > > value. This would be the common choice in the case of stateids sent
> > > > > with a CLOSE or OPEN_DOWNGRADE. Because OPENs may be sent in
> > > > > parallel for the same owner, a client might close a file without
> > > > > knowing that an OPEN upgrade had been done by the server, changing
> > > > > the lock in question. If CLOSE were sent with a zero seqid, the OPEN
> > > > > upgrade would be cancelled before the client even received an
> > > > > indication that an upgrade had happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestion there is clearly that the client can rely on the server
> > > > > not reordering those CLOSE/OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations w.r.t. a parallel
> > > > > OPEN. Otherwise, what is the difference between sending a non-zero
> > > > > seqid and zero?
> > > > >
> > > > > > "The server is required to increment the "seqid" field by
> > > > > > one at each transition of the stateid. This is important since the
> > > > > > client will inspect the seqid in OPEN stateids to determine the order
> > > > > > of OPEN processing done by the server."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we do need to fix this on the server, it's likely to be pretty ugly:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We'd either need to serialize seqid morphing operations (ugh), or make
> > > > > > update_stateid do an cmpxchg to swap it into place (or add some extra
> > > > > > locking around it), and then have some way to unwind all of the changes
> > > > > > if that fails. That may be impossible however -- we're likely closing
> > > > > > struct files after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Updates to the state are already required to be atomic. You can't have
> > > > > a stateid where an OPEN_DOWNGRADE or CLOSE only partially succeeded.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, all of that said, I think the client has some bugs in its seqid
> > > > > > handling as well. It should have realized that the stateid was a r/o
> > > > > > one after the OPEN_DOWNGRADE came back with the higher seqid, but it
> > > > > > still issued a WRITE just afterward. That seems wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. The client is relying on the server not reordering the
> > > > > OPEN_DOWNGRADE. It expects either for the OPEN to happen first, and
> > > > > the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to fail, or for the OPEN_DOWNGRADE to happen first,
> > > > > and for both operations to succeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trond
> > > >
> > > > In that case, the "simple" fix would be to add a mutex to
> > > > nfs4_ol_stateid. Lock that in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op, and ensure that
> > > > we unlock it after bumping the seqid (or on error).
> > > >
> > > > Bruce, any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Why isn't nfsd4_cstate_assign_replay()/nfsd4_cstate_clear_replay()
> > > already doing this with the so_replay.rp_mutex lock?
> > >
> > > Looking at it.... OK, sorry, that's 4.0 only. I don't know if that
> > > should be shared in the session case.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, that's probably a bit heavyweight for v4.1. That mutex is in the
> > stateowner struct. The same stateowner could be opening different
> > files, and we wouldn't want to serialize those. I think we'd need
> > something in the stateid struct itself.
> >
> > Trond also pointed out that we don't really need to serialize OPEN
> > calls, so we might be best off with something like a rw semaphore. Take
> > the read lock in OPEN, and the write lock for OPEN_DOWNGRADE/CLOSE.
> > LOCK/LOCKU will also need similar treatment of course.
>
> OK, I think I agree. LOCK and LOCKU both need exclusive locks, right?
>
> > I'm not sure about LAYOUTGET/LAYOUTRETURN/CLOSE though.
>
> Me neither.
>
> --b.
Andrew, could you test this patch out? This just covers open and lock
stateids. If it works, I'll clean up the comments and resend it to the
list as a PATCH email.
Assuming that it does, we'll need to consider what (if anything) to do
about layout stateids...
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> Andrew, could you test this patch out? This just covers open and lock
> stateids. If it works, I'll clean up the comments and resend it to the
> list as a PATCH email.
Will do, thank you!
> Assuming that it does, we'll need to consider what (if anything) to do
> about layout stateids...
--
Andrew W. Elble
[email protected]
Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead
Rochester Institute of Technology
PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912
> Andrew, could you test this patch out? This just covers open and lock
> stateids. If it works, I'll clean up the comments and resend it to the
> list as a PATCH email.
>
> Assuming that it does, we'll need to consider what (if anything) to do
> about layout stateids...
Jeff,
We've run with no issues overnight. I'll let you know if we see
anything weird in the next few days (It generally takes a few days at
this point to trigger anything out-of-the-ordinary)
Thanks,
Andy
--
Andrew W. Elble
[email protected]
Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead
Rochester Institute of Technology
PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:49:33 -0400
Andrew W Elble <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew, could you test this patch out? This just covers open and lock
> > stateids. If it works, I'll clean up the comments and resend it to the
> > list as a PATCH email.
> >
> > Assuming that it does, we'll need to consider what (if anything) to do
> > about layout stateids...
>
> Jeff,
>
> We've run with no issues overnight. I'll let you know if we see
> anything weird in the next few days (It generally takes a few days at
> this point to trigger anything out-of-the-ordinary)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
Great. Thanks for helping test it!
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>