From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2A5ABA4A; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 03:46:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756871203; cv=none; b=PJrIyEAU6Ry0J66bG+lKnrQFTvVRhfnps/JizhaD6SGEW0DT6hZALseEhIPEjr4HgGP6IBwUwWBxpQjNB+GTYh6UEmToyuDInnl22nqFOuBZH1xdGxPwgnKD+ncrX7WbzJmtkel+W3dT2u5/sQuBYQEnvB2e/44epmgo1tis1RQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756871203; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uYcpWWqYubMdfXkt3CQc3hGe1T0wSHS1XLaVk5l4aQ8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=sLq6h/4BbZNNRAfCZgzV555TlaRfVWhtc+gloAPhg6n61WGpPvUR+c/vUXAXc71Iz1s8PSCekncKtAwyx/6EuBWL1frJheKbRyaF9GU/d9cTDBdb+KIm0EfW3h23NkFftFCEC9CWShUmBCQZzFiNXfpKnrJlP8Z1iAJO9+ypO+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.194]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4cGpN660v3z13N05; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:42:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemp200004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.195.99]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5806140159; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:46:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.186.66] (10.174.186.66) by kwepemp200004.china.huawei.com (7.202.195.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:46:36 +0800 Message-ID: <7bf4275d-a7a0-4dab-8e5f-eb7b6e965377@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:46:36 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: remove long-standing revoked delegations by force To: Benjamin Coddington , Li Lingfeng CC: Jeff Layton , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20250902022237.1488709-1-lilingfeng3@huawei.com> <1ece2978-239c-4939-bb16-0c7c64614c66@huawei.com> From: "zhangjian (CG)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) To kwepemp200004.china.huawei.com (7.202.195.99) Hello every experts. If we can see all delegations on hard-mounted nfs client, which are also on server cl_revoked list, changed from NFS_DELEGATION_RETURN_IF_CLOSED|NFS_DELEGATION_REVOKED|NFS_DELEGATION_TEST_EXPIRED to NFS_DELEGATION_RETURN_IF_CLOSED|NFS_DELEGATION_REVOKED, can we give some hypothesis on this problem ? By the way, this problem can be cover over by decreasing file count on server. Thanks, zhangjian On 2025/9/2 20:43, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > On 2 Sep 2025, at 8:10, Li Lingfeng wrote: > >> Our expected outcome was that the client would release the abnormal >> delegation via TEST_STATEID/FREE_STATEID upon detecting its invalidity. >> However, this problematic delegation is no longer present in the >> client's server->delegations list—whether due to client-side timeouts or >> the server-side bug [1]. > > How does the client timeout TEST_STATEID - are you mounting with 'soft'? > > We should find the server-side bug and fix it rather than write code to > paper over it. I do think the synchronization of state here is a bit > fragile and wish the protocol had a generation, sequence, or marker for > setting SEQ4_STATUS_ bits.. > >>> >>> Should we instead just administratively evict the client since it's >>> clearly not behaving right in this case? >> Thanks for the suggestion. While administratively evicting the client would >> certainly resolve the immediate delegation issue, I'm concerned that approach >> might be a bit heavy-handed. >> The problematic behavior seems isolated to a single delegation. Meanwhile, >> the client itself likely has numerous other open files and active state on >> the server. Forcing a complete client reconnect would tear down all that >> state, which could cause significant application disruption and be perceived >> as a service outage from the client's perspective. >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/de669327-c93a-49e5-a53b-bda9e67d34a2@huawei.com/ > > ^^ in this thread you reference v5.10 - there was a knfsd fix for a > cl_revoked leak "3b816601e279", and there have been 3 or 4 fixes to fix > problems and optimize the client walk of delegations since then. Jeff > pointed out that there have been fixes in these areas. Are you finding this > problem still with all those fixes included? > > Ben > >