summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/fs
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNeilBrown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>2005-06-23 22:04:20 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org>2005-06-24 00:06:35 -0700
commit3e9e3dbe0fe36c824ce2c5d7b05997c87a64bbdc (patch)
treef8291afbbe83259c5309d1b4b968359f1bf63fd4 /fs
parentea1da636e956ad1591a74904f23d98bbc26a644b (diff)
downloadlinux-3.10-3e9e3dbe0fe36c824ce2c5d7b05997c87a64bbdc.tar.gz
linux-3.10-3e9e3dbe0fe36c824ce2c5d7b05997c87a64bbdc.tar.bz2
linux-3.10-3e9e3dbe0fe36c824ce2c5d7b05997c87a64bbdc.zip
[PATCH] knfsd: nfsd4: allow multiple lockowners
>From the language of rfc3530 section 8.1.3 (e.g., the suggestion that a "process id" might be a reasonable lockowner value) it's conceivable that a client might want to use the same lockowner string on multiple files, so we may as well allow that. We expect each use of open_to_lockowner to create a distinct seqid stream, though. For now we're also allowing multiple uses of open_to_lockowner with the same open, though it seems unlikely clients would actually do that. Also add a comment reminding myself of some very non-scalable data structures. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs')
-rw-r--r--fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c76
1 files changed, 33 insertions, 43 deletions
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index 22e76e3f06a..26d00465c28 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -2584,22 +2584,6 @@ nfs4_set_lock_denied(struct file_lock *fl, struct nfsd4_lock_denied *deny)
}
static struct nfs4_stateowner *
-find_lockstateowner(struct xdr_netobj *owner, clientid_t *clid)
-{
- struct nfs4_stateowner *local = NULL;
- int i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < LOCK_HASH_SIZE; i++) {
- list_for_each_entry(local, &lock_ownerid_hashtbl[i], so_idhash) {
- if (!cmp_owner_str(local, owner, clid))
- continue;
- return local;
- }
- }
- return NULL;
-}
-
-static struct nfs4_stateowner *
find_lockstateowner_str(struct inode *inode, clientid_t *clid,
struct xdr_netobj *owner)
{
@@ -2697,7 +2681,7 @@ check_lock_length(u64 offset, u64 length)
int
nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *current_fh, struct nfsd4_lock *lock)
{
- struct nfs4_stateowner *lock_sop = NULL, *open_sop = NULL;
+ struct nfs4_stateowner *open_sop = NULL;
struct nfs4_stateid *lock_stp;
struct file *filp;
struct file_lock file_lock;
@@ -2756,16 +2740,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *current_fh, struct nfsd4_lock
strhashval = lock_ownerstr_hashval(fp->fi_inode,
open_sop->so_client->cl_clientid.cl_id,
&lock->v.new.owner);
- /*
- * If we already have this lock owner, the client is in
- * error (or our bookeeping is wrong!)
- * for asking for a 'new lock'.
- */
- status = nfserr_bad_stateid;
- lock_sop = find_lockstateowner(&lock->v.new.owner,
- &lock->v.new.clientid);
- if (lock_sop)
- goto out;
+ /* XXX: Do we need to check for duplicate stateowners on
+ * the same file, or should they just be allowed (and
+ * create new stateids)? */
status = nfserr_resource;
if (!(lock->lk_stateowner = alloc_init_lock_stateowner(strhashval, open_sop->so_client, open_stp, lock)))
goto out;
@@ -3056,8 +3033,11 @@ int
nfsd4_release_lockowner(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_release_lockowner *rlockowner)
{
clientid_t *clid = &rlockowner->rl_clientid;
- struct nfs4_stateowner *local = NULL;
+ struct nfs4_stateowner *sop;
+ struct nfs4_stateid *stp;
struct xdr_netobj *owner = &rlockowner->rl_owner;
+ struct list_head matches;
+ int i;
int status;
dprintk("nfsd4_release_lockowner clientid: (%08x/%08x):\n",
@@ -3073,22 +3053,32 @@ nfsd4_release_lockowner(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_release_lockowner *
nfs4_lock_state();
- status = nfs_ok;
- local = find_lockstateowner(owner, clid);
- if (local) {
- struct nfs4_stateid *stp;
-
- /* check for any locks held by any stateid
- * associated with the (lock) stateowner */
- status = nfserr_locks_held;
- list_for_each_entry(stp, &local->so_stateids,
- st_perstateowner) {
- if (check_for_locks(stp->st_vfs_file, local))
- goto out;
+ status = nfserr_locks_held;
+ /* XXX: we're doing a linear search through all the lockowners.
+ * Yipes! For now we'll just hope clients aren't really using
+ * release_lockowner much, but eventually we have to fix these
+ * data structures. */
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matches);
+ for (i = 0; i < LOCK_HASH_SIZE; i++) {
+ list_for_each_entry(sop, &lock_ownerid_hashtbl[i], so_idhash) {
+ if (!cmp_owner_str(sop, owner, clid))
+ continue;
+ list_for_each_entry(stp, &sop->so_stateids,
+ st_perstateowner) {
+ if (check_for_locks(stp->st_vfs_file, sop))
+ goto out;
+ /* Note: so_perclient unused for lockowners,
+ * so it's OK to fool with here. */
+ list_add(&sop->so_perclient, &matches);
+ }
}
- /* no locks held by (lock) stateowner */
- status = nfs_ok;
- release_stateowner(local);
+ }
+ /* Clients probably won't expect us to return with some (but not all)
+ * of the lockowner state released; so don't release any until all
+ * have been checked. */
+ status = nfs_ok;
+ list_for_each_entry(sop, &matches, so_perclient) {
+ release_stateowner(sop);
}
out:
nfs4_unlock_state();