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:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:36:46 -0700
From:   Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc:     "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "slow@samba.org" <slow@samba.org>,
        "dai.ngo@oracle.com" <dai.ngo@oracle.com>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Locking issue between NFSv4 and SMB client
Message-ID: <YU3+nhUW+xSzjIhD@jeremy-acer>
Reply-To: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
References: <5b7be2c0-95a6-048c-581f-17e5e3750daa@oracle.com>
 <20210923215056.GH18334@fieldses.org>
 <48b3a41e2dbea7948b0df3fea002208a273409fd.camel@hammerspace.com>
 <f4b9eb02-73e6-f082-6657-87a007b99198@samba.org>
 <ea40f67038f822d13407becb7e4eedc31e5edbb0.camel@hammerspace.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ea40f67038f822d13407becb7e4eedc31e5edbb0.camel@hammerspace.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:13:23AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 05:46 +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote:
>> Am 24.09.21 um 05:35 schrieb Trond Myklebust:
>> > Not if you set the "kernel oplocks" parameter in the smb.conf file.
>> > We
>> > just added support for this in the Linux 5.14 kernel NFSv4 client.
>> >
>> > Now that said, "kernel oplocks" will currently only support basic
>> > level
>> > I oplocks, and cannot support level II or leases. According to the
>> > smb.conf manpage, this is due to some incompleteness in the current
>> > VFS
>> > lease implementation.
>> >
>> > I'd love to get some more info from the Samba team about what is
>> > missing from the kernel lease implementation that prevents us from
>> > implementing these more advanced oplock/lease features. From the
>> > description in Microsoft's docs, I'm pretty sure that NFSv4
>> > delegations
>> > should be able to provide all the guarantees that are required.
>>
>> leases can be shared among file handles. When someone requests a
>> lease
>> he passes a cookie. Then when he opens the same file with the same
>> cookie the lease is not broken.
>
>Right, but that is easily solved in user space by having the cookie act
>as a key that references the file descriptor that holds the lease. This
>is how we typically implement NFSv4 delegations as well.

How does this work in multi-process situations ?
When you say "file descriptor", if the fd was passed
between processes would the lease state transfer ?