blob: b69448a71345f95da6e3b3a9b1016a58abad1aa5 [file] [log] [blame]
From fee3fa6777c76e70245cb74efb057fa213d07dd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:11:37 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] 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: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index 1a0cdeb3b875..a9ca774ae7b1 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -3128,12 +3128,17 @@ 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))
--
2.7.4