Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:58:25 -0500
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
To:     Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
Cc:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "chuck.lever@oracle.com" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] NFSD: fix error handling in callbacks
Message-ID: <YEowERpnfmBd9HpH@pick.fieldses.org>
References: <20210309144127.57833-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
 <YEeWK+gs4c8O7k0u@pick.fieldses.org>
 <4ca27c770577376b0a39f0cfcfb529b96d6d5aae.camel@hammerspace.com>
 <CAN-5tyFttTHRdnELORJwCER_KPGBNk4W3eLwG0Z=QkwmPQh1UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d205a6a77273534666b3c33065934b9f66e7b103.camel@hammerspace.com>
 <YEjb9ZadFqa9Vu9O@pick.fieldses.org>
 <CAN-5tyFZ8fS6fjOJEu2NkRYUX6HrA5XNKPWyWN+UVtQT6Gp4kQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAN-5tyFZ8fS6fjOJEu2NkRYUX6HrA5XNKPWyWN+UVtQT6Gp4kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 05:09:20PM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:59:51PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 15:41 -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:22 PM Trond Myklebust <
> > > > trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 10:37 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:41:27AM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When the server tries to do a callback and a client fails it
> > > > > > > due to
> > > > > > > authentication problems, we need the server to set callback
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > flag in RENEW so that client can recover.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was looking at this.  It looks to me like this should really be
> > > > > > just:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         case 1:
> > > > > >                 if (task->tk_status)
> > > > > >                         nfsd4_mark_cb_down(clp, task->tk_status);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If tk_status showed an error, and the ->done method doesn't
> > > > > > return 0
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > tell us it something worth retrying, then the callback failed
> > > > > > permanently, so we should mark the callback path down, regardless
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > exact error.
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree. task->tk_status could be an unhandled NFSv4 error (see
> > > > > nfsd4_cb_recall_done()). The client might, for instance, be in the
> > > > > process of returning the delegation being recalled. Why should that
> > > > > result in the callback channel being marked as down?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking about say the connection going down and server should
> > > > just reconnect instead of recovering the callback channel. I assumed
> > > > that connection break is something that's not  recoverable by the
> > > > callback but perhaps I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > No. I'm saying that nfsd4_cb_recall_done() will return a value of '1'
> > > for both task->tk_status == -EBADHANDLE and -NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID. I'm
> > > not seeing why either of those errors should be handled by marking the
> > > callback channel as being down.
> > >
> > > Looking further, it seems that the same function will also return '1'
> > > without checking the value of task->tk_status if the delegation has
> > > been revoked or returned. So that would mean that even NFS4ERR_DELAY
> > > could trigger the call to nfsd4_mark_cb_down() with the above change.
> >
> > Yeah, OK, that's wrong, apologies.
> >
> > I'm just a little worried about the attempt to enumerate transport level
> > errors in nfsd4_cb_done().  Are we sure that EIO, ETIMEDOUT, EACCESS is
> > the right list?
> 
> Looking at call_transmit_status error handling, I don't think
> connection errors are returned. Instead the code tries to fix the
> connection by retrying unless the rpc_timeout is reached and then only
> EIO,TIMEDOUT is returned.
> 
> Can then my original patch be considered without resubmission?

Sure, thanks for checking that.

--b.

> 
> >
> > --b.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --b.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c | 1 +
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
> > > > > > > index 052be5bf9ef5..7325592b456e 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1189,6 +1189,7 @@ static void nfsd4_cb_done(struct rpc_task
> > > > > > > *task, void *calldata)
> > > > > > >                 switch (task->tk_status) {
> > > > > > >                 case -EIO:
> > > > > > >                 case -ETIMEDOUT:
> > > > > > > +               case -EACCES:
> > > > > > >                         nfsd4_mark_cb_down(clp, task-
> > > > > > > >tk_status);
> > > > > > >                 }
> > > > > > >                 break;
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.27.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Trond Myklebust
> > > > > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> > > > > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trond Myklebust
> > > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> > > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>