Re: 2.6.24-rc3-git4 NFS crossmnt regression [SOLVED]

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:01:56 +0200 Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 
> > argh, this is getting bad.
> > 
> > Can you please test the below patch asap? Against 2.6.24-rc4 or latest-linus.
> > 
> > 
> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Revert
> > 
> >     commit 2b1e300a9dfc3196ccddf6f1d74b91b7af55e416
> >     Author: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Date:   Sun Dec 2 00:33:17 2007 +1100
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I finally solved this.
> There is no need to revert 2b1e300a9dfc3196ccddf6f1d74b91b7af55e416.
> 
> It was actually a deadly mixture of 3 bugs:
> 
> 1) Stale handles - Trond's patch fixes it, but I somehow missed it.

What is "Trond's patch" and where is it now?

> 2) Empty /proc/fs/nfsd (which causes nfs4 failures, and masks the bug #1, since with it the subfolders are just empty)
> 	[PATCH 2.6.24-rc4] proc: Remove/Fix proc generic d_revalidate fixes it

That patch was merged into Linus's tree just prior to 2.6.24-rc5.

> 3) And as I expected, a userspace bug, which believe me or not has exactly the same symptoms
> like #2 (and doesn't depend on others)
> 
> It is a wrong boot script in BLFS that starts nfs daemons in wrong order.
> So there are 3 bugs and each masks the former one :-) .
> 
> I revised boot script to use recommended order like in nfs-utils.
> And finally everything works....
> 

Well...  It's relatively common that insufficiently-robust userspace works
OK under kernel N and then stops working under kernel N+1.  Even though the
fault lies with userspace, we prefer that it continues to work.

But it doesn't sounds like that'll be a concern here.

Thanks for the followup.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/