On 6/9/25 4:35 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
Hi,
I hope you don't mind a cross-post, but I thought both groups
might find this interesting...
I have been creating a compound RPC that does REMOVE and
then tries to determine if the file object has been removed and
I was surprised to see quite different results from the Linux knfsd
and Solaris 11.4 NFSv4.1/4.2 servers. I think both these servers
provide FH4_PERSISTENT file handles, although I suppose I
should check that?
First, the test OPEN/CREATEs a regular file called "foo" (only one
hard link) and acquires a write delegation for it.
Then a compound does the following:
...
REMOVE foo
PUTFH fh for foo
GETATTR
For the Solaris 11.4 server, the server CB_RECALLs the
delegation and then replies NFS4ERR_STALE for the PUTFH above.
(The FreeBSD server currently does the same.)
For a fairly recent Linux (6.12) knfsd, the above replies NFS_OK
with nlinks == 0 in the GETATTR reply.
Hmm. So I've looked in RFC8881 (I'm terrible at reading it so I
probably missed something) and I cannot find anything that states
either of the above behaviours is incorrect.
(NFS4ERR_STALE is listed as an error code for PUTFH, but the
description of PUTFH only says that it sets the CFH to the fh arg.
It does not say anything w.r.t. the fh arg. needing to be for a file
that still exists.) Neither of these servers sets
OPEN4_RESULT_PRESERVE_UNLINKED in the OPEN reply.
So, it looks like "file object no longer exists" is indicated either
by a NFS4ERR_STALE reply to either PUTFH or GETATTR
OR
by a successful reply, but with nlinks == 0 for the GETATTR reply.
To be honest, I kinda like the Linux knfsd version, but I am wondering
if others think that both of these replies is correct?
Also, is the CB_RECALL needed when the delegation is held by
the same client as the one doing the REMOVE?
The Linux NFSD detects the delegation belongs to the same client that
causes the conflict (due to REMOVE) and skips the CB_RECALL. This is
an optimization based on the assumption that the client would handle
the conflict locally.
If the REMOVE was done by another client, the REMOVE will not complete
until the delegation is returned. If the PUTFH comes after the REMOVE
was completed, it'll fail with NFS4ERR_STALE since the file, specified
by the file handle, no longer exists.
-Dai
(I don't think it is, but there is a discussion in 18.25.4 which says
"When the determination above cannot be made definitively because
delegations are being held, they MUST be recalled.." but everything
above that is a may/MAY, so it is not obvious to me if a server really
needs to case?)
Any comments? Thanks, rick
ps: I am amazed when I learn these things about NFSv4.n after all
these years.
