Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Benjamin Coddington" <bcodding@redhat.com>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc:     "Xuewei Zhang" <xueweiz@google.com>, jlayton@kernel.org,
        "Grigor Avagyan" <grigora@google.com>,
        "Trevor Bourget" <bourget@google.com>,
        "Nauman Rafique" <nauman@google.com>,
        trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com, anna.schumaker@netapp.com,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockd: Show pid of lockd for remote locks
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 07:18:57 -0400
Message-ID: <C3DA91E7-B905-4A74-94A0-2BF4AFE1FD05@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190520205106.GA29025@fieldses.org>
References: <CAPtwhKrJw54DmfVdP4ADd3w5QPv0cRP+kr1Atn58QOFL5xBGbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3A924C3F-A161-4EE2-A74E-2EE1B6D2CA14@redhat.com>
 <CAPtwhKoF0XTuFa5msGB_eiiwRcJA0kK7eu6Rw6-b-5+8Qy0DDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <C5CB1B1E-59BD-4DB6-82D8-CE8E641CAC5A@redhat.com>
 <FF6B465E-DA4C-430D-ABEE-6053EF1E9A44@redhat.com>
 <20190520205106.GA29025@fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 20 May 2019, at 16:51, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:22:00AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> Ok, I just noticed that we set fl_owner to the nlm_host in
>> nlm4svc_retrieve_args, so things are not as dire as I thought.  What
>> would be nice is a sane set of tests for NLM..
>
> What would we have needed to catch this?  Sounds like it turns
> multi-client testing wouldn't have been required?  (Not that that 
> would
> be a bad idea.)

Two NLM clients would be ideal to exercise the full range of expected 
lock behavior.  I suspect that's something I can do with what's in pynfs 
today, but I haven't looked yet.  I suppose if there's a test for NLM I 
should make one for v4 too..

Ben