Re: [nfsv4] RFC 7530: Filehandle of opened file after the REMOVE

[Trond Myklebust <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 2, 2017, at 13:11, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > If you read RFC7530, then the client is expected to return the delegation before doing any form of RENAME or REMOVE
> 
> Could you be more specific about where you saw that?  I tried to find it but didn't succeed.  In fact, with regard to RENAME, the text makes the need for a recall conditional about whether the server in question might disallow RENAMEs depending on what existing opens deny.  I don't remember any statement about expectations regarding delegation return in advance of these ops.

See:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7530#section-10.4.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7530#section-10.4.4>

10.4.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7530#section-10.4.4>.  Recall of Open Delegation

   The following events necessitate the recall of an open delegation:

   o  Potentially conflicting OPEN request (or READ/WRITE done with
      "special" stateid)

   o  SETATTR issued by another client

   o  REMOVE request for the file

   o  RENAME request for the file as either source or target of the
      RENAME

   Whether a RENAME of a directory in the path leading to the file
   results in the recall of an open delegation depends on the semantics
   of the server file system.  If that file system denies such RENAMEs
   when a file is open, the recall must be performed to determine
   whether the file in question is, in fact, open.

Note that the above special case appears only to apply to _directories_. It is not qualifying the “RENAME request for the file as either source or target…”.

There is also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7530#section-10.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7530#section-10.4>

   When a single client holds an OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegation, it is
   assured that no other client may modify the contents or attributes of
   the file.  If more than one client holds an OPEN_DELEGATE_READ
   delegation, then the contents and attributes of that file are not
   allowed to change.  When a client has an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE
   delegation, it may modify the file data since no other client will be
   accessing the file's data.  The client holding an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE
   delegation may only affect file attributes that are intimately
   connected with the file data: size, time_modify, and change.

That last sentence implies (but does not state explicitly) that the client must give up the write delegation if it wants to modify other file attributes.

> 
> > since the server has no stateid or session id with which to identify the origin of the RPC call.
> 
> True statement about an annoying aspect of v4.0, but I'm not clear about where it appears in RFC7530.

It doesn’t, but that was the main argument for recalling the delegation in the cases.

> 
> > It is less obvious that this needs be the case for NFSv4.x (x>0), but I can't remember seeing any changes to those texts in RFC5661.
> 
> Once we find the text in RFC7530, we can address RFC5661.  If the text you recall seeing in RFC7530 appears unchanged in RFC5661, we might need an errata.
> 


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5661#section-10.4.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5661#section-10.4.4>


The text in RFC7530 was a straight cut n’ paste job from RFC5661.

> 
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Trond Myklebust <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2 January 2017 at 00:19, Rick Macklem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Tom Talpey wrote:
> On 1/1/2017 8:13 AM, David Noveck wrote:
> > Btw, my preferred title for such a document, almost certain to be
> > rejected, is "Silly Rename Must Die" :-)
> Actually replying to a random thread, mostly Dave's...
> 
> A case that I wasn't clear on w.r.t. this is:
> - The client holds a delegation for the file.
> - The client issues opens locally w.r.t. this delegation.
> - A process/thread on the client does a "Remove" of the file.
> 
> Is the client expected to acquire Opens against the server and return the
> Delegation? (This seems like more work than just doing good old sillyrename?)
> - Or does a Delegation have the same effect as an Open against the file on the
>   server.
> 
> If you read RFC7530, then the client is expected to return the delegation before doing any form of RENAME or REMOVE, since the server has no stateid or session id with which to identify the origin of the RPC call.
> 
> It is less obvious that this needs be the case for NFSv4.x (x>0), but I can't remember seeing any changes to those texts in RFC5661.
> 
> Cheers
>   Trond
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>
> 
>