linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.7 096/186] pNFS: Handle NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT correctly in LAYOUTGET

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160818135936.252056255@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:58:33 +0200
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.7 096/186] pNFS: Handle NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT correctly in LAYOUTGET

4.7-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>

commit 66b53f325876703b7ab815c482cd104609f8772c upstream.

Instead of giving up altogether and falling back to doing I/O
through the MDS, which may make the situation worse, wait for
2 lease periods for the callback to resolve itself, and then
try destroying the existing layout.

Only if this was an attempt at getting a first layout, do we
give up altogether, as the server is clearly crazy.

Fixes: 183d9e7b112aa ("pnfs: rework LAYOUTGET retry handling")
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/nfs/pnfs.c |   13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
@@ -1505,7 +1505,7 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
 	struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg = NULL;
 	nfs4_stateid stateid;
 	long timeout = 0;
-	unsigned long giveup = jiffies + rpc_get_timeout(server->client);
+	unsigned long giveup = jiffies + (clp->cl_lease_time << 1);
 	bool first;
 
 	if (!pnfs_enabled_sb(NFS_SERVER(ino))) {
@@ -1649,9 +1649,18 @@ lookup_again:
 	if (IS_ERR(lseg)) {
 		switch(PTR_ERR(lseg)) {
 		case -EBUSY:
-		case -ERECALLCONFLICT:
 			if (time_after(jiffies, giveup))
 				lseg = NULL;
+			break;
+		case -ERECALLCONFLICT:
+			/* Huh? We hold no layouts, how is there a recall? */
+			if (first) {
+				lseg = NULL;
+				break;
+			}
+			/* Destroy the existing layout and start over */
+			if (time_after(jiffies, giveup))
+				pnfs_destroy_layout(NFS_I(ino));
 			/* Fallthrough */
 		case -EAGAIN:
 			break;