tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Gloss.     Arch.     IMS     UICC    |    Misc.    |    search     info

RFC 5661


Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol

Part 8 of 20, p. 184 to 228
Prev RFC Part       Next RFC Part


prevText      Top      Up      ToC       Page 184 
9.  File Locking and Share Reservations

   To support Win32 share reservations, it is necessary to provide
   operations that atomically open or create files.  Having a separate
   share/unshare operation would not allow correct implementation of the
   Win32 OpenFile API.  In order to correctly implement share semantics,
   the previous NFS protocol mechanisms used when a file is opened or
   created (LOOKUP, CREATE, ACCESS) need to be replaced.  The NFSv4.1
   protocol defines an OPEN operation that is capable of atomically
   looking up, creating, and locking a file on the server.

9.1.  Opens and Byte-Range Locks

   It is assumed that manipulating a byte-range lock is rare when
   compared to READ and WRITE operations.  It is also assumed that
   server restarts and network partitions are relatively rare.
   Therefore, it is important that the READ and WRITE operations have a
   lightweight mechanism to indicate if they possess a held lock.  A
   LOCK operation contains the heavyweight information required to
   establish a byte-range lock and uniquely define the owner of the

9.1.1.  State-Owner Definition

   When opening a file or requesting a byte-range lock, the client must
   specify an identifier that represents the owner of the requested
   lock.  This identifier is in the form of a state-owner, represented
   in the protocol by a state_owner4, a variable-length opaque array
   that, when concatenated with the current client ID, uniquely defines
   the owner of a lock managed by the client.  This may be a thread ID,
   process ID, or other unique value.

   Owners of opens and owners of byte-range locks are separate entities
   and remain separate even if the same opaque arrays are used to
   designate owners of each.  The protocol distinguishes between open-
   owners (represented by open_owner4 structures) and lock-owners
   (represented by lock_owner4 structures).

Top      Up      ToC       Page 185 
   Each open is associated with a specific open-owner while each byte-
   range lock is associated with a lock-owner and an open-owner, the
   latter being the open-owner associated with the open file under which
   the LOCK operation was done.  Delegations and layouts, on the other
   hand, are not associated with a specific owner but are associated
   with the client as a whole (identified by a client ID).

9.1.2.  Use of the Stateid and Locking

   All READ, WRITE, and SETATTR operations contain a stateid.  For the
   purposes of this section, SETATTR operations that change the size
   attribute of a file are treated as if they are writing the area
   between the old and new sizes (i.e., the byte-range truncated or
   added to the file by means of the SETATTR), even where SETATTR is not
   explicitly mentioned in the text.  The stateid passed to one of these
   operations must be one that represents an open, a set of byte-range
   locks, or a delegation, or it may be a special stateid representing
   anonymous access or the special bypass stateid.

   If the state-owner performs a READ or WRITE operation in a situation
   in which it has established a byte-range lock or share reservation on
   the server (any OPEN constitutes a share reservation), the stateid
   (previously returned by the server) must be used to indicate what
   locks, including both byte-range locks and share reservations, are
   held by the state-owner.  If no state is established by the client,
   either a byte-range lock or a share reservation, a special stateid
   for anonymous state (zero as the value for "other" and "seqid") is
   used.  (See Section 8.2.3 for a description of 'special' stateids in
   general.)  Regardless of whether a stateid for anonymous state or a
   stateid returned by the server is used, if there is a conflicting
   share reservation or mandatory byte-range lock held on the file, the
   server MUST refuse to service the READ or WRITE operation.

   Share reservations are established by OPEN operations and by their
   nature are mandatory in that when the OPEN denies READ or WRITE
   operations, that denial results in such operations being rejected
   with error NFS4ERR_LOCKED.  Byte-range locks may be implemented by
   the server as either mandatory or advisory, or the choice of
   mandatory or advisory behavior may be determined by the server on the
   basis of the file being accessed (for example, some UNIX-based
   servers support a "mandatory lock bit" on the mode attribute such
   that if set, byte-range locks are required on the file before I/O is
   possible).  When byte-range locks are advisory, they only prevent the
   granting of conflicting lock requests and have no effect on READs or
   WRITEs.  Mandatory byte-range locks, however, prevent conflicting I/O
   operations.  When they are attempted, they are rejected with
   NFS4ERR_LOCKED.  When the client gets NFS4ERR_LOCKED on a file for
   which it knows it has the proper share reservation, it will need to

Top      Up      ToC       Page 186 
   send a LOCK operation on the byte-range of the file that includes the
   byte-range the I/O was to be performed on, with an appropriate
   locktype field of the LOCK operation's arguments (i.e., READ*_LT for
   a READ operation, WRITE*_LT for a WRITE operation).

   Note that for UNIX environments that support mandatory byte-range
   locking, the distinction between advisory and mandatory locking is
   subtle.  In fact, advisory and mandatory byte-range locks are exactly
   the same as far as the APIs and requirements on implementation.  If
   the mandatory lock attribute is set on the file, the server checks to
   see if the lock-owner has an appropriate shared (READ_LT) or
   exclusive (WRITE_LT) byte-range lock on the byte-range it wishes to
   READ from or WRITE to.  If there is no appropriate lock, the server
   checks if there is a conflicting lock (which can be done by
   attempting to acquire the conflicting lock on behalf of the lock-
   owner, and if successful, release the lock after the READ or WRITE
   operation is done), and if there is, the server returns

   For Windows environments, byte-range locks are always mandatory, so
   the server always checks for byte-range locks during I/O requests.

   Thus, the LOCK operation does not need to distinguish between
   advisory and mandatory byte-range locks.  It is the server's
   processing of the READ and WRITE operations that introduces the

   Every stateid that is validly passed to READ, WRITE, or SETATTR, with
   the exception of special stateid values, defines an access mode for

   o  For stateids associated with opens, this is the mode defined by
      the original OPEN that caused the allocation of the OPEN stateid
      and as modified by subsequent OPENs and OPEN_DOWNGRADEs for the
      same open-owner/file pair.

   o  For stateids returned by byte-range LOCK operations, the
      appropriate mode is the access mode for the OPEN stateid
      associated with the lock set represented by the stateid.

   o  For delegation stateids, the access mode is based on the type of

   When a READ, WRITE, or SETATTR (that specifies the size attribute)
   operation is done, the operation is subject to checking against the
   access mode to verify that the operation is appropriate given the
   stateid with which the operation is associated.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 187 
   In the case of WRITE-type operations (i.e., WRITEs and SETATTRs that
   set size), the server MUST verify that the access mode allows writing
   and MUST return an NFS4ERR_OPENMODE error if it does not.  In the
   case of READ, the server may perform the corresponding check on the
   access mode, or it may choose to allow READ on OPENs for
   OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE, to accommodate clients whose WRITE
   implementation may unavoidably do reads (e.g., due to buffer cache
   constraints).  However, even if READs are allowed in these
   circumstances, the server MUST still check for locks that conflict
   with the READ (e.g., another OPEN specified OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_READ or
   OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH).  Note that a server that does enforce the
   access mode check on READs need not explicitly check for conflicting
   share reservations since the existence of OPEN for
   OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ guarantees that no conflicting share
   reservation can exist.

   The READ bypass special stateid (all bits of "other" and "seqid" set
   to one) indicates a desire to bypass locking checks.  The server MAY
   allow READ operations to bypass locking checks at the server, when
   this special stateid is used.  However, WRITE operations with this
   special stateid value MUST NOT bypass locking checks and are treated
   exactly the same as if a special stateid for anonymous state were

   A lock may not be granted while a READ or WRITE operation using one
   of the special stateids is being performed and the scope of the lock
   to be granted would conflict with the READ or WRITE operation.  This
   can occur when:

   o  A mandatory byte-range lock is requested with a byte-range that
      conflicts with the byte-range of the READ or WRITE operation.  For
      the purposes of this paragraph, a conflict occurs when a shared
      lock is requested and a WRITE operation is being performed, or an
      exclusive lock is requested and either a READ or a WRITE operation
      is being performed.

   o  A share reservation is requested that denies reading and/or
      writing and the corresponding operation is being performed.

   o  A delegation is to be granted and the delegation type would
      prevent the I/O operation, i.e., READ and WRITE conflict with an
      OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation and WRITE conflicts with an
      OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegation.

   When a client holds a delegation, it needs to ensure that the stateid
   sent conveys the association of operation with the delegation, to
   avoid the delegation from being avoidably recalled.  When the
   delegation stateid, a stateid open associated with that delegation,

Top      Up      ToC       Page 188 
   or a stateid representing byte-range locks derived from such an open
   is used, the server knows that the READ, WRITE, or SETATTR does not
   conflict with the delegation but is sent under the aegis of the
   delegation.  Even though it is possible for the server to determine
   from the client ID (via the session ID) that the client does in fact
   have a delegation, the server is not obliged to check this, so using
   a special stateid can result in avoidable recall of the delegation.

9.2.  Lock Ranges

   The protocol allows a lock-owner to request a lock with a byte-range
   and then either upgrade, downgrade, or unlock a sub-range of the
   initial lock, or a byte-range that overlaps -- fully or partially --
   either with that initial lock or a combination of a set of existing
   locks for the same lock-owner.  It is expected that this will be an
   uncommon type of request.  In any case, servers or server file
   systems may not be able to support sub-range lock semantics.  In the
   event that a server receives a locking request that represents a sub-
   range of current locking state for the lock-owner, the server is
   allowed to return the error NFS4ERR_LOCK_RANGE to signify that it
   does not support sub-range lock operations.  Therefore, the client
   should be prepared to receive this error and, if appropriate, report
   the error to the requesting application.

   The client is discouraged from combining multiple independent locking
   ranges that happen to be adjacent into a single request since the
   server may not support sub-range requests for reasons related to the
   recovery of byte-range locking state in the event of server failure.
   As discussed in Section 8.4.2, the server may employ certain
   optimizations during recovery that work effectively only when the
   client's behavior during lock recovery is similar to the client's
   locking behavior prior to server failure.

9.3.  Upgrading and Downgrading Locks

   If a client has a WRITE_LT lock on a byte-range, it can request an
   atomic downgrade of the lock to a READ_LT lock via the LOCK
   operation, by setting the type to READ_LT.  If the server supports
   atomic downgrade, the request will succeed.  If not, it will return
   NFS4ERR_LOCK_NOTSUPP.  The client should be prepared to receive this
   error and, if appropriate, report the error to the requesting

   If a client has a READ_LT lock on a byte-range, it can request an
   atomic upgrade of the lock to a WRITE_LT lock via the LOCK operation
   by setting the type to WRITE_LT or WRITEW_LT.  If the server does not
   support atomic upgrade, it will return NFS4ERR_LOCK_NOTSUPP.  If the
   upgrade can be achieved without an existing conflict, the request

Top      Up      ToC       Page 189 
   will succeed.  Otherwise, the server will return either
   returned if the client sent the LOCK operation with the type set to
   WRITEW_LT and the server has detected a deadlock.  The client should
   be prepared to receive such errors and, if appropriate, report the
   error to the requesting application.

9.4.  Stateid Seqid Values and Byte-Range Locks

   When a LOCK or LOCKU operation is performed, the stateid returned has
   the same "other" value as the argument's stateid, and a "seqid" value
   that is incremented (relative to the argument's stateid) to reflect
   the occurrence of the LOCK or LOCKU operation.  The server MUST
   increment the value of the "seqid" field whenever there is any change
   to the locking status of any byte offset as described by any of the
   locks covered by the stateid.  A change in locking status includes a
   change from locked to unlocked or the reverse or a change from being
   locked for READ_LT to being locked for WRITE_LT or the reverse.

   When there is no such change, as, for example, when a range already
   locked for WRITE_LT is locked again for WRITE_LT, the server MAY
   increment the "seqid" value.

9.5.  Issues with Multiple Open-Owners

   When the same file is opened by multiple open-owners, a client will
   have multiple OPEN stateids for that file, each associated with a
   different open-owner.  In that case, there can be multiple LOCK and
   LOCKU requests for the same lock-owner sent using the different OPEN
   stateids, and so a situation may arise in which there are multiple
   stateids, each representing byte-range locks on the same file and
   held by the same lock-owner but each associated with a different

   In such a situation, the locking status of each byte (i.e., whether
   it is locked, the READ_LT or WRITE_LT type of the lock, and the lock-
   owner holding the lock) MUST reflect the last LOCK or LOCKU operation
   done for the lock-owner in question, independent of the stateid
   through which the request was sent.

   When a byte is locked by the lock-owner in question, the open-owner
   to which that byte-range lock is assigned SHOULD be that of the open-
   owner associated with the stateid through which the last LOCK of that
   byte was done.  When there is a change in the open-owner associated
   with locks for the stateid through which a LOCK or LOCKU was done,
   the "seqid" field of the stateid MUST be incremented, even if the
   locking, in terms of lock-owners has not changed.  When there is a

Top      Up      ToC       Page 190 
   change to the set of locked bytes associated with a different stateid
   for the same lock-owner, i.e., associated with a different open-
   owner, the "seqid" value for that stateid MUST NOT be incremented.

9.6.  Blocking Locks

   Some clients require the support of blocking locks.  While NFSv4.1
   provides a callback when a previously unavailable lock becomes
   available, this is an OPTIONAL feature and clients cannot depend on
   its presence.  Clients need to be prepared to continually poll for
   the lock.  This presents a fairness problem.  Two of the lock types,
   READW_LT and WRITEW_LT, are used to indicate to the server that the
   client is requesting a blocking lock.  When the callback is not used,
   the server should maintain an ordered list of pending blocking locks.
   When the conflicting lock is released, the server may wait for the
   period of time equal to lease_time for the first waiting client to
   re-request the lock.  After the lease period expires, the next
   waiting client request is allowed the lock.  Clients are required to
   poll at an interval sufficiently small that it is likely to acquire
   the lock in a timely manner.  The server is not required to maintain
   a list of pending blocked locks as it is used to increase fairness
   and not correct operation.  Because of the unordered nature of crash
   recovery, storing of lock state to stable storage would be required
   to guarantee ordered granting of blocking locks.

   Servers may also note the lock types and delay returning denial of
   the request to allow extra time for a conflicting lock to be
   released, allowing a successful return.  In this way, clients can
   avoid the burden of needless frequent polling for blocking locks.
   The server should take care in the length of delay in the event the
   client retransmits the request.

   If a server receives a blocking LOCK operation, denies it, and then
   later receives a nonblocking request for the same lock, which is also
   denied, then it should remove the lock in question from its list of
   pending blocking locks.  Clients should use such a nonblocking
   request to indicate to the server that this is the last time they
   intend to poll for the lock, as may happen when the process
   requesting the lock is interrupted.  This is a courtesy to the
   server, to prevent it from unnecessarily waiting a lease period
   before granting other LOCK operations.  However, clients are not
   required to perform this courtesy, and servers must not depend on
   them doing so.  Also, clients must be prepared for the possibility
   that this final locking request will be accepted.

   When a server indicates, via the flag OPEN4_RESULT_MAY_NOTIFY_LOCK,
   that CB_NOTIFY_LOCK callbacks might be done for the current open
   file, the client should take notice of this, but, since this is a

Top      Up      ToC       Page 191 
   hint, cannot rely on a CB_NOTIFY_LOCK always being done.  A client
   may reasonably reduce the frequency with which it polls for a denied
   lock, since the greater latency that might occur is likely to be
   eliminated given a prompt callback, but it still needs to poll.  When
   it receives a CB_NOTIFY_LOCK, it should promptly try to obtain the
   lock, but it should be aware that other clients may be polling and
   that the server is under no obligation to reserve the lock for that
   particular client.

9.7.  Share Reservations

   A share reservation is a mechanism to control access to a file.  It
   is a separate and independent mechanism from byte-range locking.
   When a client opens a file, it sends an OPEN operation to the server
   specifying the type of access required (READ, WRITE, or BOTH) and the
   type of access to deny others (OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_NONE,
   OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH).  If the OPEN fails, the client will fail the
   application's open request.

   Pseudo-code definition of the semantics:

           if (request.access == 0) {
             return (NFS4ERR_INVAL)
           } else {
             if ((request.access & file_state.deny)) ||
                (request.deny & file_state.access)) {
               return (NFS4ERR_SHARE_DENIED)
           return (NFS4ERR_OK);

   When doing this checking of share reservations on OPEN, the current
   file_state used in the algorithm includes bits that reflect all
   current opens, including those for the open-owner making the new OPEN

   The constants used for the OPEN and OPEN_DOWNGRADE operations for the
   access and deny fields are as follows:

   const OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ   = 0x00000001;
   const OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE  = 0x00000002;
   const OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH   = 0x00000003;

   const OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_NONE     = 0x00000000;
   const OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_READ     = 0x00000001;
   const OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_WRITE    = 0x00000002;
   const OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH     = 0x00000003;

Top      Up      ToC       Page 192 
9.8.  OPEN/CLOSE Operations

   To provide correct share semantics, a client MUST use the OPEN
   operation to obtain the initial filehandle and indicate the desired
   access and what access, if any, to deny.  Even if the client intends
   to use a special stateid for anonymous state or READ bypass, it must
   still obtain the filehandle for the regular file with the OPEN
   operation so the appropriate share semantics can be applied.  Clients
   that do not have a deny mode built into their programming interfaces
   for opening a file should request a deny mode of

   The OPEN operation with the CREATE flag also subsumes the CREATE
   operation for regular files as used in previous versions of the NFS
   protocol.  This allows a create with a share to be done atomically.

   The CLOSE operation removes all share reservations held by the open-
   owner on that file.  If byte-range locks are held, the client SHOULD
   release all locks before sending a CLOSE operation.  The server MAY
   free all outstanding locks on CLOSE, but some servers may not support
   the CLOSE of a file that still has byte-range locks held.  The server
   MUST return failure, NFS4ERR_LOCKS_HELD, if any locks would exist
   after the CLOSE.

   The LOOKUP operation will return a filehandle without establishing
   any lock state on the server.  Without a valid stateid, the server
   will assume that the client has the least access.  For example, if
   one client opened a file with OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH and another
   client accesses the file via a filehandle obtained through LOOKUP,
   the second client could only read the file using the special read
   bypass stateid.  The second client could not WRITE the file at all
   because it would not have a valid stateid from OPEN and the special
   anonymous stateid would not be allowed access.

9.9.  Open Upgrade and Downgrade

   When an OPEN is done for a file and the open-owner for which the OPEN
   is being done already has the file open, the result is to upgrade the
   open file status maintained on the server to include the access and
   deny bits specified by the new OPEN as well as those for the existing
   OPEN.  The result is that there is one open file, as far as the
   protocol is concerned, and it includes the union of the access and
   deny bits for all of the OPEN requests completed.  The OPEN is
   represented by a single stateid whose "other" value matches that of
   the original open, and whose "seqid" value is incremented to reflect
   the occurrence of the upgrade.  The increment is required in cases in
   which the "upgrade" results in no change to the open mode (e.g., an
   OPEN is done for read when the existing open file is opened for

Top      Up      ToC       Page 193 
   OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH).  Only a single CLOSE will be done to reset
   the effects of both OPENs.  The client may use the stateid returned
   by the OPEN effecting the upgrade or with a stateid sharing the same
   "other" field and a seqid of zero, although care needs to be taken as
   far as upgrades that happen while the CLOSE is pending.  Note that
   the client, when sending the OPEN, may not know that the same file is
   in fact being opened.  The above only applies if both OPENs result in
   the OPENed object being designated by the same filehandle.

   When the server chooses to export multiple filehandles corresponding
   to the same file object and returns different filehandles on two
   different OPENs of the same file object, the server MUST NOT "OR"
   together the access and deny bits and coalesce the two open files.
   Instead, the server must maintain separate OPENs with separate
   stateids and will require separate CLOSEs to free them.

   When multiple open files on the client are merged into a single OPEN
   file object on the server, the close of one of the open files (on the
   client) may necessitate change of the access and deny status of the
   open file on the server.  This is because the union of the access and
   deny bits for the remaining opens may be smaller (i.e., a proper
   subset) than previously.  The OPEN_DOWNGRADE operation is used to
   make the necessary change and the client should use it to update the
   server so that share reservation requests by other clients are
   handled properly.  The stateid returned has the same "other" field as
   that passed to the server.  The "seqid" value in the returned stateid
   MUST be incremented, even in situations in which there is no change
   to the access and deny bits for the file.

9.10.  Parallel OPENs

   Unlike the case of NFSv4.0, in which OPEN operations for the same
   open-owner are inherently serialized because of the owner-based
   seqid, multiple OPENs for the same open-owner may be done in
   parallel.  When clients do this, they may encounter situations in
   which, because of the existence of hard links, two OPEN operations
   may turn out to open the same file, with a later OPEN performed being
   an upgrade of the first, with this fact only visible to the client
   once the operations complete.

   In this situation, clients may determine the order in which the OPENs
   were performed by examining the stateids returned by the OPENs.
   Stateids that share a common value of the "other" field can be
   recognized as having opened the same file, with the order of the
   operations determinable from the order of the "seqid" fields, mod any
   possible wraparound of the 32-bit field.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 194 
   When the possibility exists that the client will send multiple OPENs
   for the same open-owner in parallel, it may be the case that an open
   upgrade may happen without the client knowing beforehand that this
   could happen.  Because of this possibility, CLOSEs and
   OPEN_DOWNGRADEs should generally be sent with a non-zero seqid in the
   stateid, to avoid the possibility that the status change associated
   with an open upgrade is not inadvertently lost.

9.11.  Reclaim of Open and Byte-Range Locks

   Special forms of the LOCK and OPEN operations are provided when it is
   necessary to re-establish byte-range locks or opens after a server

   o  To reclaim existing opens, an OPEN operation is performed using a
      CLAIM_PREVIOUS.  Because the client, in this type of situation,
      will have already opened the file and have the filehandle of the
      target file, this operation requires that the current filehandle
      be the target file, rather than a directory, and no file name is

   o  To reclaim byte-range locks, a LOCK operation with the reclaim
      parameter set to true is used.

   Reclaims of opens associated with delegations are discussed in
   Section 10.2.1.

10.  Client-Side Caching

   Client-side caching of data, of file attributes, and of file names is
   essential to providing good performance with the NFS protocol.
   Providing distributed cache coherence is a difficult problem, and
   previous versions of the NFS protocol have not attempted it.
   Instead, several NFS client implementation techniques have been used
   to reduce the problems that a lack of coherence poses for users.
   These techniques have not been clearly defined by earlier protocol
   specifications, and it is often unclear what is valid or invalid
   client behavior.

   The NFSv4.1 protocol uses many techniques similar to those that have
   been used in previous protocol versions.  The NFSv4.1 protocol does
   not provide distributed cache coherence.  However, it defines a more
   limited set of caching guarantees to allow locks and share
   reservations to be used without destructive interference from client-
   side caching.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 195 
   In addition, the NFSv4.1 protocol introduces a delegation mechanism,
   which allows many decisions normally made by the server to be made
   locally by clients.  This mechanism provides efficient support of the
   common cases where sharing is infrequent or where sharing is read-

10.1.  Performance Challenges for Client-Side Caching

   Caching techniques used in previous versions of the NFS protocol have
   been successful in providing good performance.  However, several
   scalability challenges can arise when those techniques are used with
   very large numbers of clients.  This is particularly true when
   clients are geographically distributed, which classically increases
   the latency for cache revalidation requests.

   The previous versions of the NFS protocol repeat their file data
   cache validation requests at the time the file is opened.  This
   behavior can have serious performance drawbacks.  A common case is
   one in which a file is only accessed by a single client.  Therefore,
   sharing is infrequent.

   In this case, repeated references to the server to find that no
   conflicts exist are expensive.  A better option with regards to
   performance is to allow a client that repeatedly opens a file to do
   so without reference to the server.  This is done until potentially
   conflicting operations from another client actually occur.

   A similar situation arises in connection with byte-range locking.
   Sending LOCK and LOCKU operations as well as the READ and WRITE
   operations necessary to make data caching consistent with the locking
   semantics (see Section 10.3.2) can severely limit performance.  When
   locking is used to provide protection against infrequent conflicts, a
   large penalty is incurred.  This penalty may discourage the use of
   byte-range locking by applications.

   The NFSv4.1 protocol provides more aggressive caching strategies with
   the following design goals:

   o  Compatibility with a large range of server semantics.

   o  Providing the same caching benefits as previous versions of the
      NFS protocol when unable to support the more aggressive model.

   o  Requirements for aggressive caching are organized so that a large
      portion of the benefit can be obtained even when not all of the
      requirements can be met.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 196 
   The appropriate requirements for the server are discussed in later
   sections in which specific forms of caching are covered (see
   Section 10.4).

10.2.  Delegation and Callbacks

   Recallable delegation of server responsibilities for a file to a
   client improves performance by avoiding repeated requests to the
   server in the absence of inter-client conflict.  With the use of a
   "callback" RPC from server to client, a server recalls delegated
   responsibilities when another client engages in sharing of a
   delegated file.

   A delegation is passed from the server to the client, specifying the
   object of the delegation and the type of delegation.  There are
   different types of delegations, but each type contains a stateid to
   be used to represent the delegation when performing operations that
   depend on the delegation.  This stateid is similar to those
   associated with locks and share reservations but differs in that the
   stateid for a delegation is associated with a client ID and may be
   used on behalf of all the open-owners for the given client.  A
   delegation is made to the client as a whole and not to any specific
   process or thread of control within it.

   The backchannel is established by CREATE_SESSION and
   BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, and the client is required to maintain it.
   Because the backchannel may be down, even temporarily, correct
   protocol operation does not depend on them.  Preliminary testing of
   backchannel functionality by means of a CB_COMPOUND procedure with a
   single operation, CB_SEQUENCE, can be used to check the continuity of
   the backchannel.  A server avoids delegating responsibilities until
   it has determined that the backchannel exists.  Because the granting
   of a delegation is always conditional upon the absence of conflicting
   access, clients MUST NOT assume that a delegation will be granted and
   they MUST always be prepared for OPENs, WANT_DELEGATIONs, and
   GET_DIR_DELEGATIONs to be processed without any delegations being

   Unlike locks, an operation by a second client to a delegated file
   will cause the server to recall a delegation through a callback.  For
   individual operations, we will describe, under IMPLEMENTATION, when
   such operations are required to effect a recall.  A number of points
   should be noted, however.

   o  The server is free to recall a delegation whenever it feels it is
      desirable and may do so even if no operations requiring recall are
      being done.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 197 
   o  Operations done outside the NFSv4.1 protocol, due to, for example,
      access by other protocols, or by local access, also need to result
      in delegation recall when they make analogous changes to file
      system data.  What is crucial is if the change would invalidate
      the guarantees provided by the delegation.  When this is possible,
      the delegation needs to be recalled and MUST be returned or
      revoked before allowing the operation to proceed.

   o  The semantics of the file system are crucial in defining when
      delegation recall is required.  If a particular change within a
      specific implementation causes change to a file attribute, then
      delegation recall is required, whether that operation has been
      specifically listed as requiring delegation recall.  Again, what
      is critical is whether the guarantees provided by the delegation
      are being invalidated.

   Despite those caveats, the implementation sections for a number of
   operations describe situations in which delegation recall would be
   required under some common circumstances:

   o  For GETATTR, see Section 18.7.4.

   o  For OPEN, see Section 18.16.4.

   o  For READ, see Section 18.22.4.

   o  For REMOVE, see Section 18.25.4.

   o  For RENAME, see Section 18.26.4.

   o  For SETATTR, see Section 18.30.4.

   o  For WRITE, see Section 18.32.4.

   On recall, the client holding the delegation needs to flush modified
   state (such as modified data) to the server and return the
   delegation.  The conflicting request will not be acted on until the
   recall is complete.  The recall is considered complete when the
   client returns the delegation or the server times its wait for the
   delegation to be returned and revokes the delegation as a result of
   the timeout.  In the interim, the server will either delay responding
   to conflicting requests or respond to them with NFS4ERR_DELAY.
   Following the resolution of the recall, the server has the
   information necessary to grant or deny the second client's request.

   At the time the client receives a delegation recall, it may have
   substantial state that needs to be flushed to the server.  Therefore,
   the server should allow sufficient time for the delegation to be

Top      Up      ToC       Page 198 
   returned since it may involve numerous RPCs to the server.  If the
   server is able to determine that the client is diligently flushing
   state to the server as a result of the recall, the server may extend
   the usual time allowed for a recall.  However, the time allowed for
   recall completion should not be unbounded.

   An example of this is when responsibility to mediate opens on a given
   file is delegated to a client (see Section 10.4).  The server will
   not know what opens are in effect on the client.  Without this
   knowledge, the server will be unable to determine if the access and
   deny states for the file allow any particular open until the
   delegation for the file has been returned.

   A client failure or a network partition can result in failure to
   respond to a recall callback.  In this case, the server will revoke
   the delegation, which in turn will render useless any modified state
   still on the client.

10.2.1.  Delegation Recovery

   There are three situations that delegation recovery needs to deal

   o  client restart

   o  server restart

   o  network partition (full or backchannel-only)

   In the event the client restarts, the failure to renew the lease will
   result in the revocation of byte-range locks and share reservations.
   Delegations, however, may be treated a bit differently.

   There will be situations in which delegations will need to be re-
   established after a client restarts.  The reason for this is that the
   client may have file data stored locally and this data was associated
   with the previously held delegations.  The client will need to re-
   establish the appropriate file state on the server.

   To allow for this type of client recovery, the server MAY extend the
   period for delegation recovery beyond the typical lease expiration
   period.  This implies that requests from other clients that conflict
   with these delegations will need to wait.  Because the normal recall
   process may require significant time for the client to flush changed
   state to the server, other clients need be prepared for delays that
   occur because of a conflicting delegation.  This longer interval
   would increase the window for clients to restart and consult stable
   storage so that the delegations can be reclaimed.  For OPEN

Top      Up      ToC       Page 199 
   delegations, such delegations are reclaimed using OPEN with a claim
   type of CLAIM_DELEGATE_PREV or CLAIM_DELEG_PREV_FH (see Sections 10.5
   and 18.16 for discussion of OPEN delegation and the details of OPEN,

   A server MAY support claim types of CLAIM_DELEGATE_PREV and
   CLAIM_DELEG_PREV_FH, and if it does, it MUST NOT remove delegations
   upon a CREATE_SESSION that confirm a client ID created by
   EXCHANGE_ID.  Instead, the server MUST, for a period of time no less
   than that of the value of the lease_time attribute, maintain the
   client's delegations to allow time for the client to send
   CLAIM_DELEGATE_PREV and/or CLAIM_DELEG_PREV_FH requests.  The server
   support the DELEGPURGE operation.

   When the server restarts, delegations are reclaimed (using the OPEN
   operation with CLAIM_PREVIOUS) in a similar fashion to byte-range
   locks and share reservations.  However, there is a slight semantic
   difference.  In the normal case, if the server decides that a
   delegation should not be granted, it performs the requested action
   (e.g., OPEN) without granting any delegation.  For reclaim, the
   server grants the delegation but a special designation is applied so
   that the client treats the delegation as having been granted but
   recalled by the server.  Because of this, the client has the duty to
   write all modified state to the server and then return the
   delegation.  This process of handling delegation reclaim reconciles
   three principles of the NFSv4.1 protocol:

   o  Upon reclaim, a client reporting resources assigned to it by an
      earlier server instance must be granted those resources.

   o  The server has unquestionable authority to determine whether
      delegations are to be granted and, once granted, whether they are
      to be continued.

   o  The use of callbacks should not be depended upon until the client
      has proven its ability to receive them.

   When a client needs to reclaim a delegation and there is no
   associated open, the client may use the CLAIM_PREVIOUS variant of the
   WANT_DELEGATION operation.  However, since the server is not required
   to support this operation, an alternative is to reclaim via a dummy
   OPEN together with the delegation using an OPEN of type
   CLAIM_PREVIOUS.  The dummy open file can be released using a CLOSE to
   re-establish the original state to be reclaimed, a delegation without
   an associated open.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 200 
   When a client has more than a single open associated with a
   delegation, state for those additional opens can be established using
   OPEN operations of type CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR.  When these are used to
   establish opens associated with reclaimed delegations, the server
   MUST allow them when made within the grace period.

   When a network partition occurs, delegations are subject to freeing
   by the server when the lease renewal period expires.  This is similar
   to the behavior for locks and share reservations.  For delegations,
   however, the server may extend the period in which conflicting
   requests are held off.  Eventually, the occurrence of a conflicting
   request from another client will cause revocation of the delegation.
   A loss of the backchannel (e.g., by later network configuration
   change) will have the same effect.  A recall request will fail and
   revocation of the delegation will result.

   A client normally finds out about revocation of a delegation when it
   uses a stateid associated with a delegation and receives one of the
   NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED.  It also may find out about delegation
   revocation after a client restart when it attempts to reclaim a
   delegation and receives that same error.  Note that in the case of a
   revoked OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, there are issues because data
   may have been modified by the client whose delegation is revoked and
   separately by other clients.  See Section 10.5.1 for a discussion of
   such issues.  Note also that when delegations are revoked,
   information about the revoked delegation will be written by the
   server to stable storage (as described in Section 8.4.3).  This is
   done to deal with the case in which a server restarts after revoking
   a delegation but before the client holding the revoked delegation is
   notified about the revocation.

10.3.  Data Caching

   When applications share access to a set of files, they need to be
   implemented so as to take account of the possibility of conflicting
   access by another application.  This is true whether the applications
   in question execute on different clients or reside on the same

   Share reservations and byte-range locks are the facilities the
   NFSv4.1 protocol provides to allow applications to coordinate access
   by using mutual exclusion facilities.  The NFSv4.1 protocol's data
   caching must be implemented such that it does not invalidate the
   assumptions on which those using these facilities depend.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 201 
10.3.1.  Data Caching and OPENs

   In order to avoid invalidating the sharing assumptions on which
   applications rely, NFSv4.1 clients should not provide cached data to
   applications or modify it on behalf of an application when it would
   not be valid to obtain or modify that same data via a READ or WRITE

   Furthermore, in the absence of an OPEN delegation (see Section 10.4),
   two additional rules apply.  Note that these rules are obeyed in
   practice by many NFSv3 clients.

   o  First, cached data present on a client must be revalidated after
      doing an OPEN.  Revalidating means that the client fetches the
      change attribute from the server, compares it with the cached
      change attribute, and if different, declares the cached data (as
      well as the cached attributes) as invalid.  This is to ensure that
      the data for the OPENed file is still correctly reflected in the
      client's cache.  This validation must be done at least when the
      client's OPEN operation includes a deny of OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_WRITE
      or OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH, thus terminating a period in which other
      clients may have had the opportunity to open the file with
      may choose to do the revalidation more often (i.e., at OPENs
      specifying a deny mode of OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_NONE) to parallel the
      NFSv3 protocol's practice for the benefit of users assuming this
      degree of cache revalidation.

      Since the change attribute is updated for data and metadata
      modifications, some client implementors may be tempted to use the
      time_modify attribute and not the change attribute to validate
      cached data, so that metadata changes do not spuriously invalidate
      clean data.  The implementor is cautioned in this approach.  The
      change attribute is guaranteed to change for each update to the
      file, whereas time_modify is guaranteed to change only at the
      granularity of the time_delta attribute.  Use by the client's data
      cache validation logic of time_modify and not change runs the risk
      of the client incorrectly marking stale data as valid.  Thus, any
      cache validation approach by the client MUST include the use of
      the change attribute.

   o  Second, modified data must be flushed to the server before closing
      a file OPENed for OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE.  This is complementary
      to the first rule.  If the data is not flushed at CLOSE, the
      revalidation done after the client OPENs a file is unable to
      achieve its purpose.  The other aspect to flushing the data before
      close is that the data must be committed to stable storage, at the
      server, before the CLOSE operation is requested by the client.  In

Top      Up      ToC       Page 202 
      the case of a server restart and a CLOSEd file, it may not be
      possible to retransmit the data to be written to the file, hence,
      this requirement.

10.3.2.  Data Caching and File Locking

   For those applications that choose to use byte-range locking instead
   of share reservations to exclude inconsistent file access, there is
   an analogous set of constraints that apply to client-side data
   caching.  These rules are effective only if the byte-range locking is
   used in a way that matches in an equivalent way the actual READ and
   WRITE operations executed.  This is as opposed to byte-range locking
   that is based on pure convention.  For example, it is possible to
   manipulate a two-megabyte file by dividing the file into two one-
   megabyte ranges and protecting access to the two byte-ranges by byte-
   range locks on bytes zero and one.  A WRITE_LT lock on byte zero of
   the file would represent the right to perform READ and WRITE
   operations on the first byte-range.  A WRITE_LT lock on byte one of
   the file would represent the right to perform READ and WRITE
   operations on the second byte-range.  As long as all applications
   manipulating the file obey this convention, they will work on a local
   file system.  However, they may not work with the NFSv4.1 protocol
   unless clients refrain from data caching.

   The rules for data caching in the byte-range locking environment are:

   o  First, when a client obtains a byte-range lock for a particular
      byte-range, the data cache corresponding to that byte-range (if
      any cache data exists) must be revalidated.  If the change
      attribute indicates that the file may have been updated since the
      cached data was obtained, the client must flush or invalidate the
      cached data for the newly locked byte-range.  A client might
      choose to invalidate all of the non-modified cached data that it
      has for the file, but the only requirement for correct operation
      is to invalidate all of the data in the newly locked byte-range.

   o  Second, before releasing a WRITE_LT lock for a byte-range, all
      modified data for that byte-range must be flushed to the server.
      The modified data must also be written to stable storage.

   Note that flushing data to the server and the invalidation of cached
   data must reflect the actual byte-ranges locked or unlocked.
   Rounding these up or down to reflect client cache block boundaries
   will cause problems if not carefully done.  For example, writing a
   modified block when only half of that block is within an area being
   unlocked may cause invalid modification to the byte-range outside the
   unlocked area.  This, in turn, may be part of a byte-range locked by
   another client.  Clients can avoid this situation by synchronously

Top      Up      ToC       Page 203 
   performing portions of WRITE operations that overlap that portion
   (initial or final) that is not a full block.  Similarly, invalidating
   a locked area that is not an integral number of full buffer blocks
   would require the client to read one or two partial blocks from the
   server if the revalidation procedure shows that the data that the
   client possesses may not be valid.

   The data that is written to the server as a prerequisite to the
   unlocking of a byte-range must be written, at the server, to stable
   storage.  The client may accomplish this either with synchronous
   writes or by following asynchronous writes with a COMMIT operation.
   This is required because retransmission of the modified data after a
   server restart might conflict with a lock held by another client.

   A client implementation may choose to accommodate applications that
   use byte-range locking in non-standard ways (e.g., using a byte-range
   lock as a global semaphore) by flushing to the server more data upon
   a LOCKU than is covered by the locked range.  This may include
   modified data within files other than the one for which the unlocks
   are being done.  In such cases, the client must not interfere with
   applications whose READs and WRITEs are being done only within the
   bounds of byte-range locks that the application holds.  For example,
   an application locks a single byte of a file and proceeds to write
   that single byte.  A client that chose to handle a LOCKU by flushing
   all modified data to the server could validly write that single byte
   in response to an unrelated LOCKU operation.  However, it would not
   be valid to write the entire block in which that single written byte
   was located since it includes an area that is not locked and might be
   locked by another client.  Client implementations can avoid this
   problem by dividing files with modified data into those for which all
   modifications are done to areas covered by an appropriate byte-range
   lock and those for which there are modifications not covered by a
   byte-range lock.  Any writes done for the former class of files must
   not include areas not locked and thus not modified on the client.

10.3.3.  Data Caching and Mandatory File Locking

   Client-side data caching needs to respect mandatory byte-range
   locking when it is in effect.  The presence of mandatory byte-range
   locking for a given file is indicated when the client gets back
   NFS4ERR_LOCKED from a READ or WRITE operation on a file for which it
   has an appropriate share reservation.  When mandatory locking is in
   effect for a file, the client must check for an appropriate byte-
   range lock for data being read or written.  If a byte-range lock
   exists for the range being read or written, the client may satisfy
   the request using the client's validated cache.  If an appropriate
   byte-range lock is not held for the range of the read or write, the
   read or write request must not be satisfied by the client's cache and

Top      Up      ToC       Page 204 
   the request must be sent to the server for processing.  When a read
   or write request partially overlaps a locked byte-range, the request
   should be subdivided into multiple pieces with each byte-range
   (locked or not) treated appropriately.

10.3.4.  Data Caching and File Identity

   When clients cache data, the file data needs to be organized
   according to the file system object to which the data belongs.  For
   NFSv3 clients, the typical practice has been to assume for the
   purpose of caching that distinct filehandles represent distinct file
   system objects.  The client then has the choice to organize and
   maintain the data cache on this basis.

   In the NFSv4.1 protocol, there is now the possibility to have
   significant deviations from a "one filehandle per object" model
   because a filehandle may be constructed on the basis of the object's
   pathname.  Therefore, clients need a reliable method to determine if
   two filehandles designate the same file system object.  If clients
   were simply to assume that all distinct filehandles denote distinct
   objects and proceed to do data caching on this basis, caching
   inconsistencies would arise between the distinct client-side objects
   that mapped to the same server-side object.

   By providing a method to differentiate filehandles, the NFSv4.1
   protocol alleviates a potential functional regression in comparison
   with the NFSv3 protocol.  Without this method, caching
   inconsistencies within the same client could occur, and this has not
   been present in previous versions of the NFS protocol.  Note that it
   is possible to have such inconsistencies with applications executing
   on multiple clients, but that is not the issue being addressed here.

   For the purposes of data caching, the following steps allow an
   NFSv4.1 client to determine whether two distinct filehandles denote
   the same server-side object:

   o  If GETATTR directed to two filehandles returns different values of
      the fsid attribute, then the filehandles represent distinct

   o  If GETATTR for any file with an fsid that matches the fsid of the
      two filehandles in question returns a unique_handles attribute
      with a value of TRUE, then the two objects are distinct.

   o  If GETATTR directed to the two filehandles does not return the
      fileid attribute for both of the handles, then it cannot be
      determined whether the two objects are the same.  Therefore,
      operations that depend on that knowledge (e.g., client-side data

Top      Up      ToC       Page 205 
      caching) cannot be done reliably.  Note that if GETATTR does not
      return the fileid attribute for both filehandles, it will return
      it for neither of the filehandles, since the fsid for both
      filehandles is the same.

   o  If GETATTR directed to the two filehandles returns different
      values for the fileid attribute, then they are distinct objects.

   o  Otherwise, they are the same object.

10.4.  Open Delegation

   When a file is being OPENed, the server may delegate further handling
   of opens and closes for that file to the opening client.  Any such
   delegation is recallable since the circumstances that allowed for the
   delegation are subject to change.  In particular, if the server
   receives a conflicting OPEN from another client, the server must
   recall the delegation before deciding whether the OPEN from the other
   client may be granted.  Making a delegation is up to the server, and
   clients should not assume that any particular OPEN either will or
   will not result in an OPEN delegation.  The following is a typical
   set of conditions that servers might use in deciding whether an OPEN
   should be delegated:

   o  The client must be able to respond to the server's callback
      requests.  If a backchannel has been established, the server will
      send a CB_COMPOUND request, containing a single operation,
      CB_SEQUENCE, for a test of backchannel availability.

   o  The client must have responded properly to previous recalls.

   o  There must be no current OPEN conflicting with the requested

   o  There should be no current delegation that conflicts with the
      delegation being requested.

   o  The probability of future conflicting open requests should be low
      based on the recent history of the file.

   o  The existence of any server-specific semantics of OPEN/CLOSE that
      would make the required handling incompatible with the prescribed
      handling that the delegated client would apply (see below).

   There are two types of OPEN delegations: OPEN_DELEGATE_READ and
   client to handle, on its own, requests to open a file for reading
   that do not deny OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ access to others.  Multiple

Top      Up      ToC       Page 206 
   OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegations may be outstanding simultaneously and
   do not conflict.  An OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation allows the client
   to handle, on its own, all opens.  Only OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE
   delegation may exist for a given file at a given time, and it is
   inconsistent with any OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegations.

   When a client has an OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegation, it is assured
   that neither the contents, the attributes (with the exception of
   time_access), nor the names of any links to the file will change
   without its knowledge, so long as the delegation is held.  When a
   client has an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, it may modify the file
   data locally since no other client will be accessing the file's data.
   The client holding an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation may only locally
   affect file attributes that are intimately connected with the file
   data: size, change, time_access, time_metadata, and time_modify.  All
   other attributes must be reflected on the server.

   When a client has an OPEN delegation, it does not need to send OPENs
   or CLOSEs to the server.  Instead, the client may update the
   appropriate status internally.  For an OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegation,
   opens that cannot be handled locally (opens that are for
   OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ access) must be sent to the server.

   When an OPEN delegation is made, the reply to the OPEN contains an
   OPEN delegation structure that specifies the following:

   o  the type of delegation (OPEN_DELEGATE_READ or

   o  space limitation information to control flushing of data on close
      (OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation only; see Section 10.4.1)

   o  an nfsace4 specifying read and write permissions

   o  a stateid to represent the delegation

   The delegation stateid is separate and distinct from the stateid for
   the OPEN proper.  The standard stateid, unlike the delegation
   stateid, is associated with a particular lock-owner and will continue
   to be valid after the delegation is recalled and the file remains

Top      Up      ToC       Page 207 
   When a request internal to the client is made to open a file and an
   OPEN delegation is in effect, it will be accepted or rejected solely
   on the basis of the following conditions.  Any requirement for other
   checks to be made by the delegate should result in the OPEN
   delegation being denied so that the checks can be made by the server

   o  The access and deny bits for the request and the file as described
      in Section 9.7.

   o  The read and write permissions as determined below.

   The nfsace4 passed with delegation can be used to avoid frequent
   ACCESS calls.  The permission check should be as follows:

   o  If the nfsace4 indicates that the open may be done, then it should
      be granted without reference to the server.

   o  If the nfsace4 indicates that the open may not be done, then an
      ACCESS request must be sent to the server to obtain the definitive

   The server may return an nfsace4 that is more restrictive than the
   actual ACL of the file.  This includes an nfsace4 that specifies
   denial of all access.  Note that some common practices such as
   mapping the traditional user "root" to the user "nobody" (see
   Section 5.9) may make it incorrect to return the actual ACL of the
   file in the delegation response.

   The use of a delegation together with various other forms of caching
   creates the possibility that no server authentication and
   authorization will ever be performed for a given user since all of
   the user's requests might be satisfied locally.  Where the client is
   depending on the server for authentication and authorization, the
   client should be sure authentication and authorization occurs for
   each user by use of the ACCESS operation.  This should be the case
   even if an ACCESS operation would not be required otherwise.  As
   mentioned before, the server may enforce frequent authentication by
   returning an nfsace4 denying all access with every OPEN delegation.

10.4.1.  Open Delegation and Data Caching

   An OPEN delegation allows much of the message overhead associated
   with the opening and closing files to be eliminated.  An open when an
   OPEN delegation is in effect does not require that a validation
   message be sent to the server.  The continued endurance of the
   "OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegation" provides a guarantee that no OPEN for

Top      Up      ToC       Page 208 
   has occurred.  Similarly, when closing a file opened for
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation is in effect, the data written does
   not have to be written to the server until the OPEN delegation is
   recalled.  The continued endurance of the OPEN delegation provides a
   guarantee that no open, and thus no READ or WRITE, has been done by
   another client.

   For the purposes of OPEN delegation, READs and WRITEs done without an
   OPEN are treated as the functional equivalents of a corresponding
   type of OPEN.  Although a client SHOULD NOT use special stateids when
   an open exists, delegation handling on the server can use the client
   ID associated with the current session to determine if the operation
   has been done by the holder of the delegation (in which case, no
   recall is necessary) or by another client (in which case, the
   delegation must be recalled and I/O not proceed until the delegation
   is recalled or revoked).

   With delegations, a client is able to avoid writing data to the
   server when the CLOSE of a file is serviced.  The file close system
   call is the usual point at which the client is notified of a lack of
   stable storage for the modified file data generated by the
   application.  At the close, file data is written to the server and,
   through normal accounting, the server is able to determine if the
   available file system space for the data has been exceeded (i.e., the
   server returns NFS4ERR_NOSPC or NFS4ERR_DQUOT).  This accounting
   includes quotas.  The introduction of delegations requires that an
   alternative method be in place for the same type of communication to
   occur between client and server.

   In the delegation response, the server provides either the limit of
   the size of the file or the number of modified blocks and associated
   block size.  The server must ensure that the client will be able to
   write modified data to the server of a size equal to that provided in
   the original delegation.  The server must make this assurance for all
   outstanding delegations.  Therefore, the server must be careful in
   its management of available space for new or modified data, taking
   into account available file system space and any applicable quotas.
   The server can recall delegations as a result of managing the
   available file system space.  The client should abide by the server's
   state space limits for delegations.  If the client exceeds the stated
   limits for the delegation, the server's behavior is undefined.

   Based on server conditions, quotas, or available file system space,
   the server may grant OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegations with very
   restrictive space limitations.  The limitations may be defined in a
   way that will always force modified data to be flushed to the server
   on close.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 209 
   With respect to authentication, flushing modified data to the server
   after a CLOSE has occurred may be problematic.  For example, the user
   of the application may have logged off the client, and unexpired
   authentication credentials may not be present.  In this case, the
   client may need to take special care to ensure that local unexpired
   credentials will in fact be available.  This may be accomplished by
   tracking the expiration time of credentials and flushing data well in
   advance of their expiration or by making private copies of
   credentials to assure their availability when needed.

10.4.2.  Open Delegation and File Locks

   When a client holds an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, lock
   operations are performed locally.  This includes those required for
   mandatory byte-range locking.  This can be done since the delegation
   implies that there can be no conflicting locks.  Similarly, all of
   the revalidations that would normally be associated with obtaining
   locks and the flushing of data associated with the releasing of locks
   need not be done.

   When a client holds an OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegation, lock operations
   are not performed locally.  All lock operations, including those
   requesting non-exclusive locks, are sent to the server for

10.4.3.  Handling of CB_GETATTR

   The server needs to employ special handling for a GETATTR where the
   target is a file that has an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation in
   effect.  The reason for this is that the client holding the
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation may have modified the data, and the
   server needs to reflect this change to the second client that
   submitted the GETATTR.  Therefore, the client holding the
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation needs to be interrogated.  The server
   will use the CB_GETATTR operation.  The only attributes that the
   server can reliably query via CB_GETATTR are size and change.

   Since CB_GETATTR is being used to satisfy another client's GETATTR
   request, the server only needs to know if the client holding the
   delegation has a modified version of the file.  If the client's copy
   of the delegated file is not modified (data or size), the server can
   satisfy the second client's GETATTR request from the attributes
   stored locally at the server.  If the file is modified, the server
   only needs to know about this modified state.  If the server
   determines that the file is currently modified, it will respond to
   the second client's GETATTR as if the file had been modified locally
   at the server.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 210 
   Since the form of the change attribute is determined by the server
   and is opaque to the client, the client and server need to agree on a
   method of communicating the modified state of the file.  For the size
   attribute, the client will report its current view of the file size.
   For the change attribute, the handling is more involved.

   For the client, the following steps will be taken when receiving an
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation:

   o  The value of the change attribute will be obtained from the server
      and cached.  Let this value be represented by c.

   o  The client will create a value greater than c that will be used
      for communicating that modified data is held at the client.  Let
      this value be represented by d.

   o  When the client is queried via CB_GETATTR for the change
      attribute, it checks to see if it holds modified data.  If the
      file is modified, the value d is returned for the change attribute
      value.  If this file is not currently modified, the client returns
      the value c for the change attribute.

   For simplicity of implementation, the client MAY for each CB_GETATTR
   return the same value d.  This is true even if, between successive
   CB_GETATTR operations, the client again modifies the file's data or
   metadata in its cache.  The client can return the same value because
   the only requirement is that the client be able to indicate to the
   server that the client holds modified data.  Therefore, the value of
   d may always be c + 1.

   While the change attribute is opaque to the client in the sense that
   it has no idea what units of time, if any, the server is counting
   change with, it is not opaque in that the client has to treat it as
   an unsigned integer, and the server has to be able to see the results
   of the client's changes to that integer.  Therefore, the server MUST
   encode the change attribute in network order when sending it to the
   client.  The client MUST decode it from network order to its native
   order when receiving it, and the client MUST encode it in network
   order when sending it to the server.  For this reason, change is
   defined as an unsigned integer rather than an opaque array of bytes.

   For the server, the following steps will be taken when providing an
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation:

   o  Upon providing an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, the server will
      cache a copy of the change attribute in the data structure it uses
      to record the delegation.  Let this value be represented by sc.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 211 
   o  When a second client sends a GETATTR operation on the same file to
      the server, the server obtains the change attribute from the first
      client.  Let this value be cc.

   o  If the value cc is equal to sc, the file is not modified and the
      server returns the current values for change, time_metadata, and
      time_modify (for example) to the second client.

   o  If the value cc is NOT equal to sc, the file is currently modified
      at the first client and most likely will be modified at the server
      at a future time.  The server then uses its current time to
      construct attribute values for time_metadata and time_modify.  A
      new value of sc, which we will call nsc, is computed by the
      server, such that nsc >= sc + 1.  The server then returns the
      constructed time_metadata, time_modify, and nsc values to the
      requester.  The server replaces sc in the delegation record with
      nsc.  To prevent the possibility of time_modify, time_metadata,
      and change from appearing to go backward (which would happen if
      the client holding the delegation fails to write its modified data
      to the server before the delegation is revoked or returned), the
      server SHOULD update the file's metadata record with the
      constructed attribute values.  For reasons of reasonable
      performance, committing the constructed attribute values to stable
      storage is OPTIONAL.

   As discussed earlier in this section, the client MAY return the same
   cc value on subsequent CB_GETATTR calls, even if the file was
   modified in the client's cache yet again between successive
   CB_GETATTR calls.  Therefore, the server must assume that the file
   has been modified yet again, and MUST take care to ensure that the
   new nsc it constructs and returns is greater than the previous nsc it
   returned.  An example implementation's delegation record would
   satisfy this mandate by including a boolean field (let us call it
   "modified") that is set to FALSE when the delegation is granted, and
   an sc value set at the time of grant to the change attribute value.
   The modified field would be set to TRUE the first time cc != sc, and
   would stay TRUE until the delegation is returned or revoked.  The
   processing for constructing nsc, time_modify, and time_metadata would
   use this pseudo code:

Top      Up      ToC       Page 212 
       if (!modified) {
           do CB_GETATTR for change and size;

           if (cc != sc)
               modified = TRUE;
       } else {
           do CB_GETATTR for size;

       if (modified) {
           sc = sc + 1;
           time_modify = time_metadata = current_time;
           update sc, time_modify, time_metadata into file's metadata;

   This would return to the client (that sent GETATTR) the attributes it
   requested, but make sure size comes from what CB_GETATTR returned.
   The server would not update the file's metadata with the client's
   modified size.

   In the case that the file attribute size is different than the
   server's current value, the server treats this as a modification
   regardless of the value of the change attribute retrieved via
   CB_GETATTR and responds to the second client as in the last step.

   This methodology resolves issues of clock differences between client
   and server and other scenarios where the use of CB_GETATTR break

   It should be noted that the server is under no obligation to use
   CB_GETATTR, and therefore the server MAY simply recall the delegation
   to avoid its use.

10.4.4.  Recall of Open Delegation

   The following events necessitate recall of an OPEN delegation:

   o  potentially conflicting OPEN request (or a READ or WRITE operation
      done with a special stateid)

   o  SETATTR sent by another client

   o  REMOVE request for the file

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

Top      Up      ToC       Page 213 
   Whether a RENAME of a directory in the path leading to the file
   results in recall of an OPEN delegation depends on the semantics of
   the server's 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.

   In addition to the situations above, the server may choose to recall
   OPEN delegations at any time if resource constraints make it
   advisable to do so.  Clients should always be prepared for the
   possibility of recall.

   When a client receives a recall for an OPEN delegation, it needs to
   update state on the server before returning the delegation.  These
   same updates must be done whenever a client chooses to return a
   delegation voluntarily.  The following items of state need to be
   dealt with:

   o  If the file associated with the delegation is no longer open and
      no previous CLOSE operation has been sent to the server, a CLOSE
      operation must be sent to the server.

   o  If a file has other open references at the client, then OPEN
      operations must be sent to the server.  The appropriate stateids
      will be provided by the server for subsequent use by the client
      since the delegation stateid will no longer be valid.  These OPEN
      requests are done with the claim type of CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR.  This
      will allow the presentation of the delegation stateid so that the
      client can establish the appropriate rights to perform the OPEN.
      (see Section 18.16, which describes the OPEN operation, for

   o  If there are granted byte-range locks, the corresponding LOCK
      operations need to be performed.  This applies to the
      OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation case only.

   o  For an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, if at the time of recall
      the file is not open for OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE/
      OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH, all modified data for the file must be
      flushed to the server.  If the delegation had not existed, the
      client would have done this data flush before the CLOSE operation.

   o  For an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation when a file is still open at
      the time of recall, any modified data for the file needs to be
      flushed to the server.

   o  With the OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation in place, it is possible
      that the file was truncated during the duration of the delegation.
      For example, the truncation could have occurred as a result of an

Top      Up      ToC       Page 214 
      OPEN UNCHECKED with a size attribute value of zero.  Therefore, if
      a truncation of the file has occurred and this operation has not
      been propagated to the server, the truncation must occur before
      any modified data is written to the server.

   In the case of OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, byte-range locking
   imposes some additional requirements.  To precisely maintain the
   associated invariant, it is required to flush any modified data in
   any byte-range for which a WRITE_LT lock was released while the
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation was in effect.  However, because the
   OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation implies no other locking by other
   clients, a simpler implementation is to flush all modified data for
   the file (as described just above) if any WRITE_LT lock has been
   released while the OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation was in effect.

   An implementation need not wait until delegation recall (or the
   decision to voluntarily return a delegation) to perform any of the
   above actions, if implementation considerations (e.g., resource
   availability constraints) make that desirable.  Generally, however,
   the fact that the actual OPEN state of the file may continue to
   change makes it not worthwhile to send information about opens and
   closes to the server, except as part of delegation return.  An
   exception is when the client has no more internal opens of the file.
   In this case, sending a CLOSE is useful because it reduces resource
   utilization on the client and server.  Regardless of the client's
   choices on scheduling these actions, all must be performed before the
   delegation is returned, including (when applicable) the close that
   corresponds to the OPEN that resulted in the delegation.  These
   actions can be performed either in previous requests or in previous
   operations in the same COMPOUND request.

10.4.5.  Clients That Fail to Honor Delegation Recalls

   A client may fail to respond to a recall for various reasons, such as
   a failure of the backchannel from server to the client.  The client
   may be unaware of a failure in the backchannel.  This lack of
   awareness could result in the client finding out long after the
   failure that its delegation has been revoked, and another client has
   modified the data for which the client had a delegation.  This is
   especially a problem for the client that held an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE

   Status bits returned by SEQUENCE operations help to provide an
   alternate way of informing the client of issues regarding the status
   of the backchannel and of recalled delegations.  When the backchannel
   is not available, the server returns the status bit
   SEQ4_STATUS_CB_PATH_DOWN on SEQUENCE operations.  The client can

Top      Up      ToC       Page 215 
   react by attempting to re-establish the backchannel and by returning
   recallable objects if a backchannel cannot be successfully re-

   Whether the backchannel is functioning or not, it may be that the
   recalled delegation is not returned.  Note that the client's lease
   might still be renewed, even though the recalled delegation is not
   returned.  In this situation, servers SHOULD revoke delegations that
   are not returned in a period of time equal to the lease period.  This
   period of time should allow the client time to note the backchannel-
   down status and re-establish the backchannel.

   When delegations are revoked, the server will return with the
   SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED status bit set on subsequent
   SEQUENCE operations.  The client should note this and then use
   TEST_STATEID to find which delegations have been revoked.

10.4.6.  Delegation Revocation

   At the point a delegation is revoked, if there are associated opens
   on the client, these opens may or may not be revoked.  If no byte-
   range lock or open is granted that is inconsistent with the existing
   open, the stateid for the open may remain valid and be disconnected
   from the revoked delegation, just as would be the case if the
   delegation were returned.

   For example, if an OPEN for OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH with a deny of
   OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_NONE is associated with the delegation, granting of
   another such OPEN to a different client will revoke the delegation
   but need not revoke the OPEN, since the two OPENs are consistent with
   each other.  On the other hand, if an OPEN denying write access is
   granted, then the existing OPEN must be revoked.

   When opens and/or locks are revoked, the applications holding these
   opens or locks need to be notified.  This notification usually occurs
   by returning errors for READ/WRITE operations or when a close is
   attempted for the open file.

   If no opens exist for the file at the point the delegation is
   revoked, then notification of the revocation is unnecessary.
   However, if there is modified data present at the client for the
   file, the user of the application should be notified.  Unfortunately,
   it may not be possible to notify the user since active applications
   may not be present at the client.  See Section 10.5.1 for additional

Top      Up      ToC       Page 216 
10.4.7.  Delegations via WANT_DELEGATION

   In addition to providing delegations as part of the reply to OPEN
   operations, servers MAY provide delegations separate from open, via
   the OPTIONAL WANT_DELEGATION operation.  This allows delegations to
   be obtained in advance of an OPEN that might benefit from them, for
   objects that are not a valid target of OPEN, or to deal with cases in
   which a delegation has been recalled and the client wants to make an
   attempt to re-establish it if the absence of use by other clients
   allows that.

   The WANT_DELEGATION operation may be performed on any type of file
   object other than a directory.

   When a delegation is obtained using WANT_DELEGATION, any open files
   for the same filehandle held by that client are to be treated as
   subordinate to the delegation, just as if they had been created using
   an OPEN of type CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR.  They are otherwise unchanged as
   to seqid, access and deny modes, and the relationship with byte-range
   locks.  Similarly, because existing byte-range locks are subordinate
   to an open, those byte-range locks also become indirectly subordinate
   to that new delegation.

   The WANT_DELEGATION operation provides for delivery of delegations
   via callbacks, when the delegations are not immediately available.
   When a requested delegation is available, it is delivered to the
   client via a CB_PUSH_DELEG operation.  When this happens, open files
   for the same filehandle become subordinate to the new delegation at
   the point at which the delegation is delivered, just as if they had
   been created using an OPEN of type CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR.  Similarly,
   this occurs for existing byte-range locks subordinate to an open.

10.5.  Data Caching and Revocation

   When locks and delegations are revoked, the assumptions upon which
   successful caching depends are no longer guaranteed.  For any locks
   or share reservations that have been revoked, the corresponding
   state-owner needs to be notified.  This notification includes
   applications with a file open that has a corresponding delegation
   that has been revoked.  Cached data associated with the revocation
   must be removed from the client.  In the case of modified data
   existing in the client's cache, that data must be removed from the
   client without being written to the server.  As mentioned, the
   assumptions made by the client are no longer valid at the point when
   a lock or delegation has been revoked.  For example, another client
   may have been granted a conflicting byte-range lock after the
   revocation of the byte-range lock at the first client.  Therefore,

Top      Up      ToC       Page 217 
   the data within the lock range may have been modified by the other
   client.  Obviously, the first client is unable to guarantee to the
   application what has occurred to the file in the case of revocation.

   Notification to a state-owner will in many cases consist of simply
   returning an error on the next and all subsequent READs/WRITEs to the
   open file or on the close.  Where the methods available to a client
   make such notification impossible because errors for certain
   operations may not be returned, more drastic action such as signals
   or process termination may be appropriate.  The justification here is
   that an invariant on which an application depends may be violated.
   Depending on how errors are typically treated for the client-
   operating environment, further levels of notification including
   logging, console messages, and GUI pop-ups may be appropriate.

10.5.1.  Revocation Recovery for Write Open Delegation

   Revocation recovery for an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation poses the
   special issue of modified data in the client cache while the file is
   not open.  In this situation, any client that does not flush modified
   data to the server on each close must ensure that the user receives
   appropriate notification of the failure as a result of the
   revocation.  Since such situations may require human action to
   correct problems, notification schemes in which the appropriate user
   or administrator is notified may be necessary.  Logging and console
   messages are typical examples.

   If there is modified data on the client, it must not be flushed
   normally to the server.  A client may attempt to provide a copy of
   the file data as modified during the delegation under a different
   name in the file system namespace to ease recovery.  Note that when
   the client can determine that the file has not been modified by any
   other client, or when the client has a complete cached copy of the
   file in question, such a saved copy of the client's view of the file
   may be of particular value for recovery.  In another case, recovery
   using a copy of the file based partially on the client's cached data
   and partially on the server's copy as modified by other clients will
   be anything but straightforward, so clients may avoid saving file
   contents in these situations or specially mark the results to warn
   users of possible problems.

   Saving of such modified data in delegation revocation situations may
   be limited to files of a certain size or might be used only when
   sufficient disk space is available within the target file system.
   Such saving may also be restricted to situations when the client has
   sufficient buffering resources to keep the cached copy available
   until it is properly stored to the target file system.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 218 
10.6.  Attribute Caching

   This section pertains to the caching of a file's attributes on a
   client when that client does not hold a delegation on the file.

   The attributes discussed in this section do not include named
   attributes.  Individual named attributes are analogous to files, and
   caching of the data for these needs to be handled just as data
   caching is for ordinary files.  Similarly, LOOKUP results from an
   OPENATTR directory (as well as the directory's contents) are to be
   cached on the same basis as any other pathnames.

   Clients may cache file attributes obtained from the server and use
   them to avoid subsequent GETATTR requests.  Such caching is write
   through in that modification to file attributes is always done by
   means of requests to the server and should not be done locally and
   should not be cached.  The exception to this are modifications to
   attributes that are intimately connected with data caching.
   Therefore, extending a file by writing data to the local data cache
   is reflected immediately in the size as seen on the client without
   this change being immediately reflected on the server.  Normally,
   such changes are not propagated directly to the server, but when the
   modified data is flushed to the server, analogous attribute changes
   are made on the server.  When OPEN delegation is in effect, the
   modified attributes may be returned to the server in reaction to a
   CB_RECALL call.

   The result of local caching of attributes is that the attribute
   caches maintained on individual clients will not be coherent.
   Changes made in one order on the server may be seen in a different
   order on one client and in a third order on another client.

   The typical file system application programming interfaces do not
   provide means to atomically modify or interrogate attributes for
   multiple files at the same time.  The following rules provide an
   environment where the potential incoherencies mentioned above can be
   reasonably managed.  These rules are derived from the practice of
   previous NFS protocols.

   o  All attributes for a given file (per-fsid attributes excepted) are
      cached as a unit at the client so that no non-serializability can
      arise within the context of a single file.

   o  An upper time boundary is maintained on how long a client cache
      entry can be kept without being refreshed from the server.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 219 
   o  When operations are performed that change attributes at the
      server, the updated attribute set is requested as part of the
      containing RPC.  This includes directory operations that update
      attributes indirectly.  This is accomplished by following the
      modifying operation with a GETATTR operation and then using the
      results of the GETATTR to update the client's cached attributes.

   Note that if the full set of attributes to be cached is requested by
   READDIR, the results can be cached by the client on the same basis as
   attributes obtained via GETATTR.

   A client may validate its cached version of attributes for a file by
   fetching both the change and time_access attributes and assuming that
   if the change attribute has the same value as it did when the
   attributes were cached, then no attributes other than time_access
   have changed.  The reason why time_access is also fetched is because
   many servers operate in environments where the operation that updates
   change does not update time_access.  For example, POSIX file
   semantics do not update access time when a file is modified by the
   write system call [18].  Therefore, the client that wants a current
   time_access value should fetch it with change during the attribute
   cache validation processing and update its cached time_access.

   The client may maintain a cache of modified attributes for those
   attributes intimately connected with data of modified regular files
   (size, time_modify, and change).  Other than those three attributes,
   the client MUST NOT maintain a cache of modified attributes.
   Instead, attribute changes are immediately sent to the server.

   In some operating environments, the equivalent to time_access is
   expected to be implicitly updated by each read of the content of the
   file object.  If an NFS client is caching the content of a file
   object, whether it is a regular file, directory, or symbolic link,
   the client SHOULD NOT update the time_access attribute (via SETATTR
   or a small READ or READDIR request) on the server with each read that
   is satisfied from cache.  The reason is that this can defeat the
   performance benefits of caching content, especially since an explicit
   SETATTR of time_access may alter the change attribute on the server.
   If the change attribute changes, clients that are caching the content
   will think the content has changed, and will re-read unmodified data
   from the server.  Nor is the client encouraged to maintain a modified
   version of time_access in its cache, since the client either would
   eventually have to write the access time to the server with bad
   performance effects or never update the server's time_access, thereby
   resulting in a situation where an application that caches access time
   between a close and open of the same file observes the access time
   oscillating between the past and present.  The time_access attribute

Top      Up      ToC       Page 220 
   always means the time of last access to a file by a read that was
   satisfied by the server.  This way clients will tend to see only
   time_access changes that go forward in time.

10.7.  Data and Metadata Caching and Memory Mapped Files

   Some operating environments include the capability for an application
   to map a file's content into the application's address space.  Each
   time the application accesses a memory location that corresponds to a
   block that has not been loaded into the address space, a page fault
   occurs and the file is read (or if the block does not exist in the
   file, the block is allocated and then instantiated in the
   application's address space).

   As long as each memory-mapped access to the file requires a page
   fault, the relevant attributes of the file that are used to detect
   access and modification (time_access, time_metadata, time_modify, and
   change) will be updated.  However, in many operating environments,
   when page faults are not required, these attributes will not be
   updated on reads or updates to the file via memory access (regardless
   of whether the file is local or is accessed remotely).  A client or
   server MAY fail to update attributes of a file that is being accessed
   via memory-mapped I/O.  This has several implications:

   o  If there is an application on the server that has memory mapped a
      file that a client is also accessing, the client may not be able
      to get a consistent value of the change attribute to determine
      whether or not its cache is stale.  A server that knows that the
      file is memory-mapped could always pessimistically return updated
      values for change so as to force the application to always get the
      most up-to-date data and metadata for the file.  However, due to
      the negative performance implications of this, such behavior is

   o  If the memory-mapped file is not being modified on the server, and
      instead is just being read by an application via the memory-mapped
      interface, the client will not see an updated time_access
      attribute.  However, in many operating environments, neither will
      any process running on the server.  Thus, NFS clients are at no
      disadvantage with respect to local processes.

   o  If there is another client that is memory mapping the file, and if
      that client is holding an OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation, the same
      set of issues as discussed in the previous two bullet points
      apply.  So, when a server does a CB_GETATTR to a file that the
      client has modified in its cache, the reply from CB_GETATTR will
      not necessarily be accurate.  As discussed earlier, the client's
      obligation is to report that the file has been modified since the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 221 
      delegation was granted, not whether it has been modified again
      between successive CB_GETATTR calls, and the server MUST assume
      that any file the client has modified in cache has been modified
      again between successive CB_GETATTR calls.  Depending on the
      nature of the client's memory management system, this weak
      obligation may not be possible.  A client MAY return stale
      information in CB_GETATTR whenever the file is memory-mapped.

   o  The mixture of memory mapping and byte-range locking on the same
      file is problematic.  Consider the following scenario, where a
      page size on each client is 8192 bytes.

      *  Client A memory maps the first page (8192 bytes) of file X.

      *  Client B memory maps the first page (8192 bytes) of file X.

      *  Client A WRITE_LT locks the first 4096 bytes.

      *  Client B WRITE_LT locks the second 4096 bytes.

      *  Client A, via a STORE instruction, modifies part of its locked

      *  Simultaneous to client A, client B executes a STORE on part of
         its locked byte-range.

   Here the challenge is for each client to resynchronize to get a
   correct view of the first page.  In many operating environments, the
   virtual memory management systems on each client only know a page is
   modified, not that a subset of the page corresponding to the
   respective lock byte-ranges has been modified.  So it is not possible
   for each client to do the right thing, which is to write to the
   server only that portion of the page that is locked.  For example, if
   client A simply writes out the page, and then client B writes out the
   page, client A's data is lost.

   Moreover, if mandatory locking is enabled on the file, then we have a
   different problem.  When clients A and B execute the STORE
   instructions, the resulting page faults require a byte-range lock on
   the entire page.  Each client then tries to extend their locked range
   to the entire page, which results in a deadlock.  Communicating the
   NFS4ERR_DEADLOCK error to a STORE instruction is difficult at best.

   If a client is locking the entire memory-mapped file, there is no
   problem with advisory or mandatory byte-range locking, at least until
   the client unlocks a byte-range in the middle of the file.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 222 
   Given the above issues, the following are permitted:

   o  Clients and servers MAY deny memory mapping a file for which they
      know there are byte-range locks.

   o  Clients and servers MAY deny a byte-range lock on a file they know
      is memory-mapped.

   o  A client MAY deny memory mapping a file that it knows requires
      mandatory locking for I/O.  If mandatory locking is enabled after
      the file is opened and mapped, the client MAY deny the application
      further access to its mapped file.

10.8.  Name and Directory Caching without Directory Delegations

   The NFSv4.1 directory delegation facility (described in Section 10.9
   below) is OPTIONAL for servers to implement.  Even where it is
   implemented, it may not always be functional because of resource
   availability issues or other constraints.  Thus, it is important to
   understand how name and directory caching are done in the absence of
   directory delegations.  These topics are discussed in the next two

10.8.1.  Name Caching

   The results of LOOKUP and READDIR operations may be cached to avoid
   the cost of subsequent LOOKUP operations.  Just as in the case of
   attribute caching, inconsistencies may arise among the various client
   caches.  To mitigate the effects of these inconsistencies and given
   the context of typical file system APIs, an upper time boundary is
   maintained for how long a client name cache entry can be kept without
   verifying that the entry has not been made invalid by a directory
   change operation performed by another client.

   When a client is not making changes to a directory for which there
   exist name cache entries, the client needs to periodically fetch
   attributes for that directory to ensure that it is not being
   modified.  After determining that no modification has occurred, the
   expiration time for the associated name cache entries may be updated
   to be the current time plus the name cache staleness bound.

   When a client is making changes to a given directory, it needs to
   determine whether there have been changes made to the directory by
   other clients.  It does this by using the change attribute as
   reported before and after the directory operation in the associated
   change_info4 value returned for the operation.  The server is able to
   communicate to the client whether the change_info4 data is provided
   atomically with respect to the directory operation.  If the change

Top      Up      ToC       Page 223 
   values are provided atomically, the client has a basis for
   determining, given proper care, whether other clients are modifying
   the directory in question.

   The simplest way to enable the client to make this determination is
   for the client to serialize all changes made to a specific directory.
   When this is done, and the server provides before and after values of
   the change attribute atomically, the client can simply compare the
   after value of the change attribute from one operation on a directory
   with the before value on the subsequent operation modifying that
   directory.  When these are equal, the client is assured that no other
   client is modifying the directory in question.

   When such serialization is not used, and there may be multiple
   simultaneous outstanding operations modifying a single directory sent
   from a single client, making this sort of determination can be more
   complicated.  If two such operations complete in a different order
   than they were actually performed, that might give an appearance
   consistent with modification being made by another client.  Where
   this appears to happen, the client needs to await the completion of
   all such modifications that were started previously, to see if the
   outstanding before and after change numbers can be sorted into a
   chain such that the before value of one change number matches the
   after value of a previous one, in a chain consistent with this client
   being the only one modifying the directory.

   In either of these cases, the client is able to determine whether the
   directory is being modified by another client.  If the comparison
   indicates that the directory was updated by another client, the name
   cache associated with the modified directory is purged from the
   client.  If the comparison indicates no modification, the name cache
   can be updated on the client to reflect the directory operation and
   the associated timeout can be extended.  The post-operation change
   value needs to be saved as the basis for future change_info4

   As demonstrated by the scenario above, name caching requires that the
   client revalidate name cache data by inspecting the change attribute
   of a directory at the point when the name cache item was cached.
   This requires that the server update the change attribute for
   directories when the contents of the corresponding directory is
   modified.  For a client to use the change_info4 information
   appropriately and correctly, the server must report the pre- and
   post-operation change attribute values atomically.  When the server
   is unable to report the before and after values atomically with
   respect to the directory operation, the server must indicate that

Top      Up      ToC       Page 224 
   fact in the change_info4 return value.  When the information is not
   atomically reported, the client should not assume that other clients
   have not changed the directory.

10.8.2.  Directory Caching

   The results of READDIR operations may be used to avoid subsequent
   READDIR operations.  Just as in the cases of attribute and name
   caching, inconsistencies may arise among the various client caches.
   To mitigate the effects of these inconsistencies, and given the
   context of typical file system APIs, the following rules should be

   o  Cached READDIR information for a directory that is not obtained in
      a single READDIR operation must always be a consistent snapshot of
      directory contents.  This is determined by using a GETATTR before
      the first READDIR and after the last READDIR that contributes to
      the cache.

   o  An upper time boundary is maintained to indicate the length of
      time a directory cache entry is considered valid before the client
      must revalidate the cached information.

   The revalidation technique parallels that discussed in the case of
   name caching.  When the client is not changing the directory in
   question, checking the change attribute of the directory with GETATTR
   is adequate.  The lifetime of the cache entry can be extended at
   these checkpoints.  When a client is modifying the directory, the
   client needs to use the change_info4 data to determine whether there
   are other clients modifying the directory.  If it is determined that
   no other client modifications are occurring, the client may update
   its directory cache to reflect its own changes.

   As demonstrated previously, directory caching requires that the
   client revalidate directory cache data by inspecting the change
   attribute of a directory at the point when the directory was cached.
   This requires that the server update the change attribute for
   directories when the contents of the corresponding directory is
   modified.  For a client to use the change_info4 information
   appropriately and correctly, the server must report the pre- and
   post-operation change attribute values atomically.  When the server
   is unable to report the before and after values atomically with
   respect to the directory operation, the server must indicate that
   fact in the change_info4 return value.  When the information is not
   atomically reported, the client should not assume that other clients
   have not changed the directory.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 225 
10.9.  Directory Delegations

10.9.1.  Introduction to Directory Delegations

   Directory caching for the NFSv4.1 protocol, as previously described,
   is similar to file caching in previous versions.  Clients typically
   cache directory information for a duration determined by the client.
   At the end of a predefined timeout, the client will query the server
   to see if the directory has been updated.  By caching attributes,
   clients reduce the number of GETATTR calls made to the server to
   validate attributes.  Furthermore, frequently accessed files and
   directories, such as the current working directory, have their
   attributes cached on the client so that some NFS operations can be
   performed without having to make an RPC call.  By caching name and
   inode information about most recently looked up entries in a
   Directory Name Lookup Cache (DNLC), clients do not need to send
   LOOKUP calls to the server every time these files are accessed.

   This caching approach works reasonably well at reducing network
   traffic in many environments.  However, it does not address
   environments where there are numerous queries for files that do not
   exist.  In these cases of "misses", the client sends requests to the
   server in order to provide reasonable application semantics and
   promptly detect the creation of new directory entries.  Examples of
   high miss activity are compilation in software development
   environments.  The current behavior of NFS limits its potential
   scalability and wide-area sharing effectiveness in these types of
   environments.  Other distributed stateful file system architectures
   such as AFS and DFS have proven that adding state around directory
   contents can greatly reduce network traffic in high-miss

   Delegation of directory contents is an OPTIONAL feature of NFSv4.1.
   Directory delegations provide similar traffic reduction benefits as
   with file delegations.  By allowing clients to cache directory
   contents (in a read-only fashion) while being notified of changes,
   the client can avoid making frequent requests to interrogate the
   contents of slowly-changing directories, reducing network traffic and
   improving client performance.  It can also simplify the task of
   determining whether other clients are making changes to the directory
   when the client itself is making many changes to the directory and
   changes are not serialized.

   Directory delegations allow improved namespace cache consistency to
   be achieved through delegations and synchronous recalls, in the
   absence of notifications.  In addition, if time-based consistency is

Top      Up      ToC       Page 226 
   sufficient, asynchronous notifications can provide performance
   benefits for the client, and possibly the server, under some common
   operating conditions such as slowly-changing and/or very large

10.9.2.  Directory Delegation Design

   NFSv4.1 introduces the GET_DIR_DELEGATION (Section 18.39) operation
   to allow the client to ask for a directory delegation.  The
   delegation covers directory attributes and all entries in the
   directory.  If either of these change, the delegation will be
   recalled synchronously.  The operation causing the recall will have
   to wait before the recall is complete.  Any changes to directory
   entry attributes will not cause the delegation to be recalled.

   In addition to asking for delegations, a client can also ask for
   notifications for certain events.  These events include changes to
   the directory's attributes and/or its contents.  If a client asks for
   notification for a certain event, the server will notify the client
   when that event occurs.  This will not result in the delegation being
   recalled for that client.  The notifications are asynchronous and
   provide a way of avoiding recalls in situations where a directory is
   changing enough that the pure recall model may not be effective while
   trying to allow the client to get substantial benefit.  In the
   absence of notifications, once the delegation is recalled the client
   has to refresh its directory cache; this might not be very efficient
   for very large directories.

   The delegation is read-only and the client may not make changes to
   the directory other than by performing NFSv4.1 operations that modify
   the directory or the associated file attributes so that the server
   has knowledge of these changes.  In order to keep the client's
   namespace synchronized with the server, the server will notify the
   delegation-holding client (assuming it has requested notifications)
   of the changes made as a result of that client's directory-modifying
   operations.  This is to avoid any need for that client to send
   subsequent GETATTR or READDIR operations to the server.  If a single
   client is holding the delegation and that client makes any changes to
   the directory (i.e., the changes are made via operations sent on a
   session associated with the client ID holding the delegation), the
   delegation will not be recalled.  Multiple clients may hold a
   delegation on the same directory, but if any such client modifies the
   directory, the server MUST recall the delegation from the other
   clients, unless those clients have made provisions to be notified of
   that sort of modification.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 227 
   Delegations can be recalled by the server at any time.  Normally, the
   server will recall the delegation when the directory changes in a way
   that is not covered by the notification, or when the directory
   changes and notifications have not been requested.  If another client
   removes the directory for which a delegation has been granted, the
   server will recall the delegation.

10.9.3.  Attributes in Support of Directory Notifications

   See Section 5.11 for a description of the attributes associated with
   directory notifications.

10.9.4.  Directory Delegation Recall

   The server will recall the directory delegation by sending a callback
   to the client.  It will use the same callback procedure as used for
   recalling file delegations.  The server will recall the delegation
   when the directory changes in a way that is not covered by the
   notification.  However, the server need not recall the delegation if
   attributes of an entry within the directory change.

   If the server notices that handing out a delegation for a directory
   is causing too many notifications to be sent out, it may decide to
   not hand out delegations for that directory and/or recall those
   already granted.  If a client tries to remove the directory for which
   a delegation has been granted, the server will recall all associated

   The implementation sections for a number of operations describe
   situations in which notification or delegation recall would be
   required under some common circumstances.  In this regard, a similar
   set of caveats to those listed in Section 10.2 apply.

   o  For CREATE, see Section 18.4.4.

   o  For LINK, see Section 18.9.4.

   o  For OPEN, see Section 18.16.4.

   o  For REMOVE, see Section 18.25.4.

   o  For RENAME, see Section 18.26.4.

   o  For SETATTR, see Section 18.30.4.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 228 
10.9.5.  Directory Delegation Recovery

   Recovery from client or server restart for state on regular files has
   two main goals: avoiding the necessity of breaking application
   guarantees with respect to locked files and delivery of updates
   cached at the client.  Neither of these goals applies to directories
   protected by OPEN_DELEGATE_READ delegations and notifications.  Thus,
   no provision is made for reclaiming directory delegations in the
   event of client or server restart.  The client can simply establish a
   directory delegation in the same fashion as was done initially.

(page 228 continued on part 9)

Next RFC Part