linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.29+ NFS-Server Problem "reconnect

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]

Message-Id: <200906191414.02674.mathias@blx4.net>
Date:	Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:14:02 +0200
From:	Mathias Kretschmer <mathias@...4.net>
To:	Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29+ NFS-Server Problem "reconnect_path: npd != pd"

Hi,

I'd like to confirm that this issue still exists with 2.6.30.

For a while my server has been running fine after the upgrade to 2.6.30.
My NFS/diskless desktop worked just fine. Then yesterday evening suddenly the 
first "reconnect_path: npd != pd" messages popped up.  Sometime during the 
night the frequency of those messages showing up increased to > 100 msgs/sec 
in average.

On my desktop I got a few 'stale NFS handles'. The most prominent one 
being '/etc'.  Needless to say, NFS is completely useless for me right now.
The desktop has been running various 2.6.30-rc kernels and is now also on 
2.6.30 vanilla.  

The messages started to show up when I upgraded the server from 2.6.25 to 
2.6.29 (and now to .30).

The underlaying filesystem on the server is XFS (sata/raid6/lvm/xfs).
This is an x86_64 kernel.

I've ported my .config forward manually using 'make oldconfig' by saying 'yes' 
to options that seemed reasonable to me.  

As reported on the other thread regarding NFS + XFS, I did not experience any 
kernel crashes with 2.6.30 anymore. 

My .config is attached.

Any further info I can provide ?

Cheers,

Mathias

On Thursday 28 May 2009 22:32:28 Sven Geggus wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields schrieb am Donnerstag, den 28. Mai um 22:28 Uhr:
> > Looks like you have subtree_check set on the "bad" export, and
> > no_subtree_check set on the "good" export.  subtree_check can result in
> > spurious stale errors when files are renamed, so it's possible this is
> > by design.
> >
> > You say you get that message on 296.29.x but not 2.6.27.x.
>
> Exactly! http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=527517
> may refer the same bug.
>
> > And you say you also get stale filehandle errors.
>
> Only on 2.6.29.x. Everything works fine qwith the older Kernel.
>
> >  I assume you didn't get the same stale filehandle errors on 2.6.27.x?
>
> No errors on the older Kernel.
>
> Sven

View attachment "config-2.6.30" of type "text/plain" (65339 bytes)