Re: [PATCH] NFS: only invalidate dentrys that are clearly invalid.

[NeilBrown]

On Mon, Nov 16 2020, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> On Mon, 2020-11-16 at 13:59 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> 
>> Prior to commit 5ceb9d7fdaaf ("NFS: Refactor
>> nfs_lookup_revalidate()")
>> and error from nfs_lookup_verify_inode() other than -ESTALE would
>> result
>> in nfs_lookup_revalidate() returning that error code (-ESTALE is
>> mapped
>> to zero).
>> Since that commit, all errors result in zero being returned.
>> 
>> When nfs_lookup_revalidate() returns zero, the dentry is invalidated
>> and, significantly, if the dentry is a directory that is mounted on,
>> that mountpoint is lost.
>> 
>> If you:
>>  - mount an NFS filesystem which contains a directory
>>  - mount something (e.g. tmpfs) on that directory
>>  - use iptables (or scissors) to block traffic to the server
>>  - ls -l the-mounted-on-directory
>>  - interrupt the 'ls -l'
>> you will find that the directory has been unmounted.
>> 
>> This can be fixed by returning the actual error code from
>> nfs_lookup_verify_inode() rather then zero (except for -ESTALE).
>> 
>> Fixes: 5ceb9d7fdaaf ("NFS: Refactor nfs_lookup_revalidate()")
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  fs/nfs/dir.c | 8 +++++---
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c
>> index cb52db9a0cfb..d24acf556e9e 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/dir.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c
>> @@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ nfs_do_lookup_revalidate(struct inode *dir,
>> struct dentry *dentry,
>>                          unsigned int flags)
>>  {
>>         struct inode *inode;
>> -       int error;
>> +       int error = 0;
>>  
>>         nfs_inc_stats(dir, NFSIOS_DENTRYREVALIDATE);
>>         inode = d_inode(dentry);
>> @@ -1372,8 +1372,10 @@ nfs_do_lookup_revalidate(struct inode *dir,
>> struct dentry *dentry,
>>             nfs_check_verifier(dir, dentry, flags & LOOKUP_RCU)) {
>>                 error = nfs_lookup_verify_inode(inode, flags);
>>                 if (error) {
>> -                       if (error == -ESTALE)
>> +                       if (error == -ESTALE) {
>>                                 nfs_zap_caches(dir);
>> +                               error = 0;
>> +                       }
>>                         goto out_bad;
>>                 }
>>                 nfs_advise_use_readdirplus(dir);
>> @@ -1395,7 +1397,7 @@ nfs_do_lookup_revalidate(struct inode *dir,
>> struct dentry *dentry,
>>  out_bad:
>>         if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
>>                 return -ECHILD;
>> -       return nfs_lookup_revalidate_done(dir, dentry, inode, 0);
>> +       return nfs_lookup_revalidate_done(dir, dentry, inode, error);
>
> Which errors do we actually need to return here? As far as I can tell,
> the only errors that nfs_lookup_verify_inode() is supposed to return is
> ENOMEM, ESTALE, ECHILD, and possibly EIO or ETiMEDOUT.
>
> Why would it be better to return those errors rather than just a 0 when
> we need to invalidate the inode, particularly since we already have a
> special case in nfs_lookup_revalidate_done() when the dentry is root?

ERESTARTSYS is the error that easily causes problems.

Returning 0 causes d_invalidate() to be called which is quite heavy
handed in mountpoints.
So it is only reasonable to return 0 when we have unambiguous
confirmation from the server that the object no longer exists.  ESTALE
is unambiguous. EIO might be unambiguous.  ERESTARTSYS, ENOMEM,
ETIMEDOUT are transient and don't justify d_invalidate() being called.

(BTW, Commit cc89684c9a26 ("NFS: only invalidate dentrys that are clearly invalid.")
 fixed much the same bug 3 years ago).
 
Thanks,
NeilBrown


>
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int
>
> -- 
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature