Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:04:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
To: Tom Haynes <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4 list <nfsv4@ietf.org>,
        Christopher T Vogan <cvogan@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <2092551082.4133350.1363838668301.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
In-Reply-To: <39CEE4C6-A2A5-4D16-84BD-E1610FE67F36@netapp.com>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] What is NFSv4 READDIR doesn't return a filehandle....
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

Tom Haynes wrote:
> Please note that I have cc'ed the NFSv4 list over at the IETF.
> 
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Christopher T Vogan <cvogan@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> > Sorry for this late posting, a coworker was made aware of this
> > thread
> > recently and
> > has these replies to make. Our server implementation is the one
> > being
> > complained about in this thread.
> >
> >
> > Quoted text is from various entries in this forum.
> >
> >
> > Neil Brown:
> > ===========
> >> Just a thought: while coping with broken servers would not be a
> >> good
> > path to
> >> follow, detecting protocol violations and reporting an error might
> >> be...
> >> should the NFS client treat a missing filehandle and a malformed
> >> reply?
> >
> > The server is allowed to remove an attribute bit from an entry in
> > the
> > readdir
> > reply, this is not "broken" nor is the reply "malformed". The lack
> > of a
> > filehandle in the reply is deterministic.
> >
> >
> >
> > Trond Myklebust:
> > ================
> >>> A customer has come across a server which does not return the
> > filehandle
> >>> information (is that allowed?).
> >>
> >> The filehandle attribute is a mandatory attribute according to
> >> RFC3530,
> > so I believe that the answer is "no".
> >
> > Mandatory is described in RFS 3530 as that the server must return
> > the
> > attribute
> > on a GETATTR. (Section 5, page 36). There is nothing saying that it
> > is
> > mandatory to return on a READDIR. Our server will return the
> > filehandle
> > on a LOOKUP/GETATTR every time.
> 
> 
> 
> GETATTR and READDIR both return attributes. To be precise, they return
> a fattr4.
> 
> Looking at Section 15.26.4 (roughly pages 277-279 of the most recent
> copy)
> of 3530bis (3530 is on the way to being replaced), READDIR states:
> 
> The READDIR operation retrieves a variable number of entries from a
> filesystem directory and returns client requested attributes for each
> entry along with information to allow the client to request
> additional directory entries in a subsequent READDIR.
> ...
> On successful return, the server's response will provide a list of
> directory entries. Each of these entries contains the name of the
> directory entry, a cookie value for that entry, and the associated
> attributes as requested. The "eof" flag has a value of TRUE if there
> are no more entries in the directory.
> 
> Any client implementation has no way to request that any server
> implementation
> return the filehandle because the filehandle is not an attribute which
> can be requested. I.e., it is mandatory.
> 
When I read this, all I think "requested" refers to is whether or not
the client sets the bit "requesting" that attribute.

> If the intent was to allow the server to not return a filehandle for
> READDIR but to
> allow it to return one for GETATTR, then it would have been made
> OPTIONAL.
> 
I don't know what the author's intent was, but since 5.1 only refers
to GETATTR, nothing in RFC3530 indicates that the same rule applies
to READDIR (ie. MANDATORY-->must always return it for READDIR).

> Whether or not the client used to work with such a server
> implementation
> or not is immaterial as far as standard compliance is concerned.
> 
> If you like, we can clean up the corresponding language in 3530bis to
> explicitly state that REQUIRED attributes are indeed required whether
> in response to GETATTR or READDIR.
> 
Personally, I think it should be "clarified" that for READDIR, the server
can choose to not reply any of the attributes. That allows the server implementor
more flexibility and since the old spec. didn't clearly require the REQUIRED
ones, I don't see why the new spec. should, unless it in impractical for clients
to allow this flexibility (and that is where the implementation evidence is
relevent, imho).

rick

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Trond Myklebust:
> > ================
> >> My concern is that the client can't objectively judge what
> >> constitutes a
> >> valid filehandle and what does not until it tries to use it in an
> >> RPC
> >> call.
> >
> > Sure it can. In the context of this discussion, if the readdir entry
> > has the filehandle attribute bit off in the reply, there is no
> > filehandle.
> >
> > I would note in the scenario we sent a trace for, the Linux client
> > had
> > a filehandle for the node in question, and "misplaced" it after a
> > readdir to the directory containing that node did not return the
> > filehandle
> > for that entry. So calling the server "broken" is objectively
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > I would also note that this problem occurred after we upgraded to
> > RHEL
> > 6.3;
> > the prior version did not have this issue, and our server did not
> > change
> > its
> > behavior. My conclusion is that the means to obtain the filehandle
> > was
> > either broken by the client adding logic to assume a filehandle and
> > obliterate
> > the prior value after a readdir reply chose not to return it, or
> > previously
> > had a code path to lookup the node and obtain the filehandle, and
> > removed
> > that code path for some reason. So again, pointing to server
> > "breakage"
> > is objectively inaccurate.
> >
> > There are many references to "brokenness" or "server bugs" in this
> > thread, and I take exception to it from a design and protocol
> > conformance
> > point of view.
> >
> > This condition is easily recoverable, as ANY missing attribute on a
> > readdir
> > is with a lookup/readdir. Our decision to not return the FH on a
> > readdir
> > reply under certain narrow conditions is not one of convenience but
> > of
> > limitations of some underlying filesystem types, and if
> > "convenience" is
> > to be used as an accusative, it can easily be returned to the
> > client's
> > refusal to deal with the legal withholding of an attribute on a
> > readdir
> > reply.
> >
> >
> > Signed,
> > Steve Huntington
> > IBM z/OS NFS
> >
> >
> > Christopher Vogan
> > Dept. W98 NFS Development & Test
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
> > in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4