Return-Path: Received: from frankvm.xs4all.nl ([83.163.148.79]:60215 "EHLO janus.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752359Ab1HDRYy (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:24:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:24:52 +0200 From: Frank van Maarseveen To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Linux NFS mailing list Subject: Re: [NLM] fcntl(F_SETLKW) yields -ENOLCK when grace period expires. Message-ID: <20110804172452.GA18087@janus> References: <20110804103018.GA11727@janus> <20110804163452.GE12445@fieldses.org> <20110804164313.GA17572@janus> <20110804164913.GG12445@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20110804164913.GG12445@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:49:13PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 06:43:13PM +0200, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:34:52PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:30:19PM +0200, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > > > > Both client- and server run 2.6.39.3, NFSv3 over UDP (without the > > > > relock_filesystem patch proposed earlier). > > > > > > > > A second client has an exclusive lock on a file on the server. The > > > > client under test calls fcntl(F_SETLKW) to wait for the same exclusive > > > > lock. Wireshark sees NLM V4 LOCK calls resulting in NLM_BLOCKED. > > > > > > > > Next the server is rebooted. The second client recovers the lock > > > > correctly. The client under test now receives NLM_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD for > > > > every NLM V4 LOCK request resulting from the waiting fcntl(F_SETLKW). When > > > > this changes to NLM_BLOCKED after grace period expiration the fcntl > > > > returns -ENOLCK ("No locks available.") instead of continuing to wait. > > > > > > So that sounds like a client bug, and correct behavior from the server > > > (assuming the second client was still holding the lock throughout). > > > > yes. > > > > > > > > > server:/proc/locks shows two entries for the file after the -ENOLCK. When > > > > the second client gives up its lock because the program running there > > > > is killed one entry in server:/proc/locks remains indefinately: as a > > > > result no NFS client can lock the file anymore. > > > > > > But that sounds like a server bug--what do the two entries look like? > > > > I think the server assumes correct client behavior; the client under > > test resulted in a '->' prefixed entry. The fcntl at the client just > > shouldn't have returned yet. > > Oh, right, so did you see a granted callback returned to the client? Hmm no, maybe it is a server bug. These are the final request and reply (which result in the incorrect -ENOLCK for F_SETLKW at the client under test), decoded by wireshark: No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info 529 225.386189 172.17.1.124 172.17.1.49 NLM V4 LOCK Call (Reply In 530) FH:0xb17f38ea svid:10 pos:0-0 Frame 529: 246 bytes on wire (1968 bits), 246 bytes captured (1968 bits) Network Lock Manager Protocol [Program Version: 4] [V4 Procedure: LOCK (2)] cookie: length: 4 contents: block: Yes exclusive: Yes lock caller_name: lokka.tasking.nl length: 16 contents: lokka.tasking.nl fh length: 28 [hash (CRC-32): 0xb17f38ea] decode type as: unknown filehandle: 01000601e66f5c256cb3414eba710fcd882a67201b000000... owner: length: 19 contents: fill bytes: opaque data svid: 10 l_offset: 0 l_len: 0 reclaim: No state: 87 No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info 530 225.386368 172.17.1.49 172.17.1.124 NLM V4 LOCK Reply (Call In 529) NLM_BLOCKED Frame 530: 78 bytes on wire (624 bits), 78 bytes captured (624 bits) Network Lock Manager Protocol [Program Version: 4] [V4 Procedure: LOCK (2)] cookie: length: 4 contents: stat: NLM_BLOCKED (3) -- Frank