diff options
| author | Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com> | 2019-10-09 22:11:37 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 2020-01-09 12:19:03 +0300 |
| commit | 58f7525f62ef576ab769bfd3a8e3d733ba75ca9b (patch) | |
| tree | 2f026faa1c81269b4b4e624c80b321e2a1e0a18f /fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | |
| parent | ac57e1605822ec7dd23e3ad5a3a2719168b32c69 (diff) | |
| download | linux-58f7525f62ef576ab769bfd3a8e3d733ba75ca9b.tar.xz | |
nfsd4: fix up replay_matches_cache()
commit 6e73e92b155c868ff7fce9d108839668caf1d9be upstream.
When running an nfs stress test, I see quite a few cached replies that
don't match up with the actual request. The first comment in
replay_matches_cache() makes sense, but the code doesn't seem to
match... fix it.
This isn't exactly a bugfix, as the server isn't required to catch every
case of a false retry. So, we may as well do this, but if this is
fixing a problem then that suggests there's a client bug.
Fixes: 53da6a53e1d4 ("nfsd4: catch some false session retries")
Signed-off-by: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 15 |
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c index 5f62007140cf..c8ce128e0054 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c @@ -3072,12 +3072,17 @@ static bool replay_matches_cache(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, (bool)seq->cachethis) return false; /* - * If there's an error than the reply can have fewer ops than - * the call. But if we cached a reply with *more* ops than the - * call you're sending us now, then this new call is clearly not - * really a replay of the old one: + * If there's an error then the reply can have fewer ops than + * the call. */ - if (slot->sl_opcnt < argp->opcnt) + if (slot->sl_opcnt < argp->opcnt && !slot->sl_status) + return false; + /* + * But if we cached a reply with *more* ops than the call you're + * sending us now, then this new call is clearly not really a + * replay of the old one: + */ + if (slot->sl_opcnt > argp->opcnt) return false; /* This is the only check explicitly called by spec: */ if (!same_creds(&rqstp->rq_cred, &slot->sl_cred)) |