Attachment 280151 Details for Bug 254195 – patch -- correctly handle errors from lockd_up (rhel5)

[patch] patch -- correctly handle errors from lockd_up (rhel5)

0001-knfsd-Correctly-handle-error-condition-from-lockd_u.patch (text/plain), 3.34 KB, created by Jeff Layton on 2007-12-06 19:30:19 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Jeff Layton

Created: 2007-12-06 19:30:19 UTC

Size: 3.34 KB

patch

obsolete

>From 18d231040d010b2e2cbde6a0dfca0aadf86497c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
>Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:10:57 -0500
>Subject: [PATCH] knfsd: Correctly handle error condition from lockd_up
>
>(Backported from upstream commit: 4a3ae42dc312dbdffee803efaf393421b79f997a)
>
>If lockd_up fails - what should we expect?  Do we have to later call
>lockd_down?
>
>Well the nfs client thinks "no", the nfs server thinks "yes".  lockd thinks
>"yes".
>
>The only answer that really makes sense is "no" !!
>
>So:
>  Make lockd_up only increment  nlmsvc_users on success.
>  Make nfsd handle errors from lockd_up properly.
>  Make sure lockd_up(0) never fails when lockd is running
>    so that the 'reclaimer' call to lockd_up doesn't need to
>    be error checked.
>
>Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
>Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
>Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
>Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
>---
> fs/lockd/clntlock.c |    2 +-
> fs/lockd/svc.c      |   12 +++++-------
> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c    |   18 +++++++++++-------
> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntlock.c b/fs/lockd/clntlock.c
>index 52774fe..8955af8 100644
>--- a/fs/lockd/clntlock.c
>+++ b/fs/lockd/clntlock.c
>@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ reclaimer(void *ptr)
> 	/* This one ensures that our parent doesn't terminate while the
> 	 * reclaim is in progress */
> 	lock_kernel();
>-	lockd_up();
>+	lockd_up(); /* note: this cannot fail as lockd is already running */
> 
> 	nlmclnt_prepare_reclaim(host);
> 	/* First, reclaim all locks that have been marked. */
>diff --git a/fs/lockd/svc.c b/fs/lockd/svc.c
>index e19f096..151777f 100644
>--- a/fs/lockd/svc.c
>+++ b/fs/lockd/svc.c
>@@ -255,15 +255,11 @@ lockd_up_proto(int proto)
> 
> 	mutex_lock(&nlmsvc_mutex);
> 	/*
>-	 * Unconditionally increment the user count ... this is
>-	 * the number of clients who _want_ a lockd process.
>-	 */
>-	nlmsvc_users++; 
>-	/*
> 	 * Check whether we're already up and running.
> 	 */
> 	if (nlmsvc_pid) {
>-		error = make_socks(nlmsvc_serv, proto);
>+		if (proto)
>+			error = make_socks(nlmsvc_serv, proto);
> 		goto out;
> 	}
> 
>@@ -271,7 +267,7 @@ lockd_up_proto(int proto)
> 	 * Sanity check: if there's no pid,
> 	 * we should be the first user ...
> 	 */
>-	if (nlmsvc_users > 1)
>+	if (nlmsvc_users)
> 		printk(KERN_WARNING
> 			"lockd_up: no pid, %d users??\n", nlmsvc_users);
> 
>@@ -308,6 +304,8 @@ lockd_up_proto(int proto)
> destroy_and_out:
> 	svc_destroy(serv);
> out:
>+	if (!error)
>+		nlmsvc_users++;
> 	mutex_unlock(&nlmsvc_mutex);
> 	return error;
> }
>diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
>index 7872bba..42f478c 100644
>--- a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
>+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
>@@ -229,18 +229,22 @@ static int nfsd_init_socks(int port)
> 	if (!list_empty(&nfsd_serv->sv_permsocks))
> 		return 0;
> 
>-	error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_UDP, port);
>-	if (error < 0)
>-		return error;
> 	error = lockd_up_proto(IPPROTO_UDP);
>-	if (error < 0)
>+	if (error >= 0) {
>+		error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_UDP, port);
>+		if (error < 0)
>+			lockd_down();
>+	}
>+	if (error < 0) 
> 		return error;
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_NFSD_TCP
>-	error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_TCP, port);
>-	if (error < 0)
>-		return error;
> 	error = lockd_up_proto(IPPROTO_TCP);
>+	if (error >= 0) {
>+		error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_TCP, port);
>+		if (error < 0)
>+			lockd_down();
>+	}
> 	if (error < 0)
> 		return error;
> #endif
>-- 
>1.5.3.3
>

Actions: View | Diff

Attachments on bug 254195: 277081 | 278361 | 280141 | 280151 | 280161 | 306390 | 306391 | 306392