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, 20 Jan 2022 11:51:35 +0100
From:   Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Yong Sun <yosun@suse.com>
Subject: Re: pynfs: [NFS 4.0] SEC7, LOCK24 test failures
Message-ID: <Yek+t754lmv5lCQI@pevik>
Reply-To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
References: <YLY9pKu38lEWaXxE@pevik>
 <YLZS1iMJR59n4hue@pick.fieldses.org>
 <164248153844.24166.16775550865302060652@noble.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <164248153844.24166.16775550865302060652@noble.neil.brown.name>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Neil,

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2021, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:01:08PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:

> > > LOCK24   st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock                              : FAILURE
> > >            OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> > >            NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID

> > I suspect the server's actually OK here, but I need to look more
> > closely.

> I agree.
> I think this patch fixes the test.

> NeilBrown

> From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:50:37 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix NFSv4.0 LOCK24 test

> Only the first lock request for a given open-owner can use lock_file.
> Subsequent lock request must use relock_file.

Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

Thanks!

> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> ---
>  nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py | 11 +++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
> index 468672403ffe..db08fbeedac4 100644
> --- a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
> +++ b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py
> @@ -886,6 +886,7 @@ class open_sequence:
>          self.client = client
>          self.owner = owner
>          self.lockowner = lockowner
> +        self.lockseq = 0
>      def open(self, access):
>          self.fh, self.stateid = self.client.create_confirm(self.owner,
>  						access=access,
> @@ -899,15 +900,21 @@ class open_sequence:
>      def close(self):
>          self.client.close_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid)
>      def lock(self, type):
> -        res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid,
> -                    type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner)
> +        if self.lockseq == 0:
> +            res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid,
> +                                        type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner)
> +        else:
> +            res = self.client.relock_file(self.lockseq, self.fh, self.lockstateid,
> +                                        type=type)
>          check(res)
>          if res.status == NFS4_OK:
>              self.lockstateid = res.lockid
> +            self.lockseq = self.lockseq + 1
I'd just: self.lockseq += 1
(supported even on python 2.x)

>      def unlock(self):
>          res = self.client.unlock_file(1, self.fh, self.lockstateid)
>          if res.status == NFS4_OK:
>              self.lockstateid = res.lockid
> +            self.lockseq = self.lockseq + 1
And here.


Kind regards,
Petr

>  def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env):
>      """Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close