In-Reply-To: <1281628195.2873.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
References: <87lj8ckb1e.fsf@patl.com>
	<8762zgmmer.fsf@patl.com>
	<1281628195.2873.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:13:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=WzNzq7wKf0qa+VFuOBYy4yW==0QvdKsTQ88+x@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: lookupcache coherence bugs in WCC update path (revised)
From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@gmail.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Trond Myklebust
<trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
>
> This looks less than obviously correct to me.

I just meant my patch obviously fixes a bug even if you do not believe
it is the bug I am encountering.  I claim it is "obvious" based on:

Obvious statement #1:  It is a bug if a directory inode's mtime is
EVER updated without invalidating the lookup cache, because that
results in a stale cache that does not know it is stale and can
persist indefinitely.

Obvious statement #2:  The current nfs_wcc_update_inode() code updates
the directory inode's mtime without invalidating the lookup cache.

So the current code would be wrong even if it never created a problem
in practice.  (Although it does create a problem in practice).

> The wcc case is invoked when the ctime/mtime/.... change is known to have occurred due to a file
> creation/unlink/... from this client. It is a weak cache consistency case.
>
> If your client is seeing ENOENT after it created the file itself, then
> the problem isn't cache coherency, but a bug in the file creation code.

The client did not create the file itself.

The sequence of operations goes like this:

1) Client looks up non-existent file, creates negative dentry.
2) File is created by a process on the server.
3) Something causes the client to update its mtime for the directory
without invalidating the dentry lookup cache.  (I have not figured out
exactly what, but I have "caught it in the act"; see below).
4) Client incorrectly returns ENOENT when application next attempts to
access file.

You may think this is the usual "multiple updates within one second"
issue.  That is what I thought at first, anyway.  But I know it is
not, for three reasons...

First, my server is using XFS, which supports sub-second timestamps.

Second, I instrumented nfs_update_inode() to record the inode's mtime
and cache_change_attribute on function entry, then to log a message on
function return if the inode is a directory whose mtime got updated
without also updating cache_change_attribute.  Then I reproduced my
issue.  My new log message appeared precisely in those runs where the
issue occurred.  (I also instrumented the code to follow the actual
sequence of events; I can see that the faulty ENOENT is being returned
because the inode's cache_change_attribute matches the stale dentry's
d_time.)

Third, my testing confirms that the issue disappears after I apply my
patch.  If the problem were the usual "multiple updates in one
second", or indeed any server-side issue whatsoever, my patch could
not have fixed it.

Unfortunately, the only test case I have is my real-world application,
which I cannot share.  It takes ~30 minutes of running to reproduce
every time, and it only happens on maybe 2/3 of the runs, so it has
taken me over a week to track this down.  I still do not know the
exact sequence of operations that causes the problem; I just know it
really is happening.

In summary, the current code is "obviously wrong" because it violates
its own invariants by potentially updating a directory's mtime without
invalidating its lookup cache.  And it really is happening to me in
practice.  My patch fixes both the potential problem (which you can
see for yourself) and the actual problem (for which you have only my
word).

Are you unwilling to fix such a bug unless I can provide you a test case?

Thanks!

 - Pat