[Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] NLM failover unlock commands

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
>   
>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>     
>>> In practice, it seems that both the unlock_ip and unlock_pathname
>>> methods that revoke locks are going to be called together.  The two
>>> separate calls therefore seem a little redundant.  The reason we *need*
>>> both is that it's possible that a misconfigured client could grab locks
>>> for a (server ip, export) combination that it isn't supposed to.
>>>   
>>>       
>> That is not a correct assumption. The two commands (unlock_ip and  
>> unlock_pathname) are not necessarily called together. It is ok for local  
>> filesystem (ext3) but not for cluster filesystem where the very same  
>> filesystem (or subtree) can be exported from multiple servers using  
>> different subtrees.
>>     
>
> Ouch.  Are people really doing that, and why?  What happens if the
> subtrees share files (because of hard links) that are locked from both
> nodes?
>   

It is *more* common than you would expect - say server1 exports 
"/mnt/gfs/maildir/namea-j" and server2 exports "/mnt/gfs/maildir/namek-z".

>   
>> Also as we discussed before, it is  
>> "unlock_filesystem", *not* "unlock_pathname" (this implies sub-tree  
>> exports) due to implementation difficulties (see the "Implementation  
>> Notes" from http://people.redhat.com/wcheng/Patches/NFS/NLM/004.txt).
>>     
>
> Unless I misread the latest patch, it's actually matching on the
> vfsmount, right?
>   

Yes.

> I guess that means we *could* handle the above situation by doing a
>
> 	mount --bind /path/to/export/point /path/to/export/point
>
> on each export, at which point there will be a separate vfsmount for
> each export point?
>   

Cluster configuration itself has been cumbersome and error-prone. 
Requirement like this will not be well received. On the other hand, 
force-unlock a mount point is a *last* resort - since NFS clients using 
another ip interface would lose the contact with the server. We should 
*not* consider "unlock_filesystem" a frequent event.

> But I don't think that's what we really want.  The goal is to ensure
> that the nfs server holds no locks on a disk filesystem so we can
> unmount it completely from this machine and mount it elsewhere.  So we
> should really be removing all locks for the superblock, not just for a
> particular mount of that superblock.  Otherwise we'll have odd problems
> if someone happens to do the unlock_filesystem downcall from a different
> namespace or something.
>   

Oh ... sorry .. didn't read this far... so we agree the "--bind" is not 
a good idea :) ..

-- Wendy