| Message ID | 1262227956-21470-1-git-send-email-dfeng@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
(CCing stable@kernel.org) Greg, once this patch is ACKed, can You also queue it for 2.6.32.x please? thanks! nik On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote: > There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!" > socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected. > This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c], > when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED. > > And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c] > > if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > <snip> > newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); > <snip> > > So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE. > > Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close > processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this > warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should > close it, not accpet then close. > > Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com> > Cc: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> > Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> > Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > --- > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); > > len = 0; > - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags) && > + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > struct svc_xprt *newxpt; > newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); > if (newxpt) { > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote: > There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!" > socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected. > This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c], > when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED. > > And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c] > > if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > <snip> > newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); > <snip> > > So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE. > > Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close > processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this > warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should > close it, not accpet then close. The logic here seems unnecessarily complicated now, but as a minimal fix, this seems fine. Is the *only* justification for this to silence this warning, or is there some more serious problem I'm missing? --b. > > Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com> > Cc: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> > Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> > Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > --- > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); > > len = 0; > - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags) && > + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > struct svc_xprt *newxpt; > newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); > if (newxpt) { -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/06/2010 07:01 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote: >> There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!" >> socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected. >> This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c], >> when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED. >> >> And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c] >> >> if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER,&xprt->xpt_flags)) { >> <snip> >> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); >> <snip> >> >> So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE. >> >> Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close >> processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this >> warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should >> close it, not accpet then close. > > The logic here seems unnecessarily complicated now, but as a minimal > fix, this seems fine. > > Is the *only* justification for this to silence this warning, or is > there some more serious problem I'm missing? If a xprt->xpt_flags has XPT_CLOSE & XPT_LISTENER, kernel will accept it first, and svc_xprt_received(xptr) no mater xpo_accept is suceed or failed, then svc_delete_xprt(xprt). I'm not sure what will happened between the svc_xprt_received and svc_delete_xprt, there isn't any lock to protect it. > > --b. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@redhat.com> >> Cc: J. Bruce Fields<bfields@fieldses.org> >> Cc: Neil Brown<neilb@suse.de> >> Cc: Trond Myklebust<Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> >> Cc: David S. Miller<davem@davemloft.net> >> --- >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c >> index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644 >> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c >> @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) >> spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); >> >> len = 0; >> - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER,&xprt->xpt_flags)) { >> + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER,&xprt->xpt_flags)&& >> + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE,&xprt->xpt_flags)) { >> struct svc_xprt *newxpt; >> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); >> if (newxpt) { > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c index 1c924ee..187f0f4 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c @@ -699,7 +699,8 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); len = 0; - if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags) && + !test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { struct svc_xprt *newxpt; newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); if (newxpt) {
There're some warnings of "nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!" socket error -107 means Transport endpoint is not connected. This warning message was outputed by svc_tcp_accept() [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c], when kernel_getpeername returns -107. This means socket might be CLOSED. And svc_tcp_accept was called by svc_recv() [net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c] if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { <snip> newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); <snip> So this might happen when xprt->xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSE. Let's take a look at commit b0401d72, this commit has moved the close processing after do recvfrom method, but this commit also introduces this warnings, if the xpt_flags has both XPT_LISTENER and XPT_CLOSED, we should close it, not accpet then close. Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com> Cc: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html