linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] NFS on loopback locks up entire system(2.6.23-rc6)?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:13:25 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To:	Chakri n <chakriin5@...il.com>
Cc:	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NFS] NFS on loopback locks up entire system(2.6.23-rc6)?

On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:12 -0700, Chakri n wrote:
> Thanks Trond, for clarifying this for me.
> 
> I have seen similar behavior when a remote NFS server is not
> available. Many processes wait end up waiting in nfs_release_page. So,
> what will happen if the remote server is not available,
> nfs_release_page cannot free the memory since it waits on rpc request
> to complete, which never completes and processes wait in there for
> ever?
> 
> And unfortunately in my case, I cannot use "mount --bind". I want to
> use the same file system from two different nodes, and I want file &
> record locking to be consistent. The only way to make sure locking is
> consistent is to use loopback NFS on 1 host and NFS mount the same
> file system on other nodes, so that NFS server ensures file & record
> locking to be consistent. Is there any alternative to this?
> 
> Is it possible or any efforts to integrate ext3 or other local file
> systems locking & network file system locking, so that user can use
> "mount --bind" on local host and NFS mount on remote nodes, but file &
> record locking will be consistent between both the nodes?

Could you be a bit more specific? Is the problem that your application
is using BSD locks (flock()) instead of POSIX locks?

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