[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-nfs
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] nfsd41: Deny new lock before RECLAIM_COMPLETE done
From:       "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields () fieldses ! org>
Date:       2011-04-27 13:54:22
Message-ID: 20110427135422.GA1618 () fieldses ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:12:00AM +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
> Before nfs41 client's RECLAIM_COMPLETE done, nfs server should 
> deny it's new lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mi Jinlong <mijinlong@cn.fujitsu.com>

Is nfserr_grace the right error?  (Honest question, I haven't looked it
up.)

Also I'd think this check should go in nfsd4_open: opens are also
prohibited before RECLAIM_COMPLETE, and if we check there then we don't
need to check here, as you have to have open state before you can do a
lock.

--b.

> ---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c |    9 +++++++++
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 4b36ec3..43cda94 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -3803,6 +3803,15 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  		 */
>  		struct nfs4_stateid *open_stp = NULL;
>  		
> +		/*
> +		 * RFC5661 18.51.3
> +		 * Before RECLAIM_COMPLETE done, return NFS4ERR_GRACE
> +		 */
> +		status = nfserr_grace;
> +		if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) &&
> +		    !cstate->session->se_client->cl_firststate)
> +			goto out;
> +
>  		status = nfserr_stale_clientid;
>  		if (!nfsd4_has_session(cstate) &&
>  		    STALE_CLIENTID(&lock->lk_new_clientid))
> -- 
> 1.7.4.1
> 
> 
--
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
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]