Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:41:32 +0200 | From | Konstantinos Skarlatos <> | Subject | Re: cifs: ls of mount point gives input/output error (probably related to CIFS: getdents() broken for large dirs) |
| |
On 31/12/2011 2:49 μμ, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote: > On Σάββατο, 31 Δεκέμβριος 2011 1:59:22 μμ, Jeff Layton wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:00:46 +0200 >> Konstantinos Skarlatos<k.skarlatos@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 30/12/2011 3:11 μμ, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:04:59 +0200 >>>> Konstantinos Skarlatos<k.skarlatos@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29/12/2011 3:54 μμ, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote: >>>>>> On Πέμπτη, 29 Δεκέμβριος 2011 3:39:30 μμ, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:30:18 +0200 >>>>>>> Konstantinos Skarlatos<k.skarlatos@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29/12/2011 4:04 πμ, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:08:57 +0200 >>>>>>>>> Konstantinos Skarlatos<k.skarlatos@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I mount via cifs a windows XP share, df gives me correct sizes, >>>>>>>>>> but when >>>>>>>>>> I ls the mount point i get input/output error. >>>>>>>>>> strace: http://pastebin.com/WXf8M1nu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mount --verbose -t cifs -o >>>>>>>>>> username=administrator,password=blahblah >>>>>>>>>> //192.168.0.11/jobs /mnt/backups/montaz/jobs >>>>>>>>>> mount.cifs kernel mount options: >>>>>>>>>> ip=192.168.0.11,unc=\\192.168.0.11\jobs,,ver=1,user=administrator,pass=******** >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> df >>>>>>>>>> //192.168.0.11/jobs 114464 >>>>>>>>>> 105196 9268 92% /mnt/backups/montaz/jobs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ls /mnt/backups/montaz/jobs/ >>>>>>>>>> ls: reading directory /mnt/backups/montaz/jobs/: Input/output >>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>> total 0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the fun thing is that i can cd to a lower level directory, and ls >>>>>>>>>> works >>>>>>>>>> fine there! only the mount point has the problem >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ls /mnt/backups/montaz/jobs/test >>>>>>>>>> total 44K >>>>>>>>>> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Apr 30 2010 blah blah/ >>>>>>>>>> ...... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> kernel version 3.2rc7 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this seems to be related to : >>>>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/1/427 >>>>>>>>>> Re: [3.0.0+][Regression][Bisected] CIFS: getdents() broken for >>>>>>>>>> large dirs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hmmm, maybe. What makes you think that it's related? What sort of >>>>>>>>> server are you seeing this against? >>>>>>>> Windows XP service pack 2 (greek) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many files are in the directory? >>>>>>> >>>>>> 140 folders and 20 files >>>>>> >>>>> Attached is a tcp dump of my session. >>>> I tried reproducing this here, but wasn't able to. Testing against my >>>> xp box worked fine. >>>> >>>> Most likely, the FIND_FILE responses are falling afoul of the code in >>>> coalesce_t2 or check2ndT2. Unfortunately that code is pretty >>>> complicated and I'm not certain what the problem actually is... >>>> >>>> One thing that's interesting is that the total data being sent in the >>>> request is rather large (16336 bytes). I think that's legit, but maybe >>>> it's exceeding the end of the buffer once we try to coalesce it. >>>> >>>> Would it be possible to get the cFYI output from this test? >>> I did not get a cFYI output from that test, but i redid a >>> mount-ls-umount and am attaching the tcpdump >>> Also here http://pastebin.com/J20uC6kU you can find the cifsFYI and the >>> contents of /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData form the same test >>>> >>>> Is this a regression? Did it work with earlier kernels and only >>>> recently start failing? >>>> >>> I do not know, and i am a bit afraid to downgrade this machine below 3.0 >>> due to some changes arch linux has introduced recently. I can always set >>> up a few virtual machines though, and i can even request permission from >>> my company to give you shell access if you like. Which kernel versions >>> would you like me to test? >> >> >> Ok, that tells us a little: >> >> -------------------[snip]--------------------- >> [96268.787078] fs/cifs/cifssmb.c: In FindFirst for >> [96268.787083] fs/cifs/transport.c: For smb_command 50 >> [96268.787086] fs/cifs/transport.c: Sending smb: total_len 88 >> >> ...FIND_FIRST command is sent >> >> [96268.787690] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0x1104 >> [96268.787697] fs/cifs/connect.c: missing 12048 bytes from transact2, >> check next response >> [96268.787865] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0x1104 >> [96268.787870] fs/cifs/connect.c: missing 12036 bytes from transact2, >> check next response >> [96268.788037] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0x1104 >> [96268.788042] fs/cifs/connect.c: missing 12036 bytes from transact2, >> check next response >> [96268.788371] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0xdb0 >> [96268.788375] fs/cifs/connect.c: missing 12888 bytes from transact2, >> check next response >> >> ...all four parts of the response are collected here >> >> [96268.788391] fs/cifs/transport.c: cifs_sync_mid_result: cmd=50 >> mid=12 state=16 >> >> ...but the state at this point is MID_RESPONSE_MALFORMED >> >> [96268.788395] fs/cifs/cifssmb.c: Error in FindFirst = -5 >> [96268.788397] fs/cifs/readdir.c: initiate cifs search rc -5 >> [96268.788398] fs/cifs/readdir.c: CIFS VFS: leaving cifs_readdir (xid >> = 737644) rc = -5 >> >> ...which makes readdir return -EIO >> >> -------------------[snip]--------------------- >> >> Based on that, it looks like something in one of these frames caused >> coalesce_t2() to return an error. I don't see the problem right offhand >> in the capture, but T2 response handling is pretty complex so it can be >> hard to see. >> >> Would it be possible for you to rebuild your kernel (or just cifs.ko) >> with this patch? Once you do that, rerun the test with cFYI turned up, >> and it should help point out what the problem is. >> >> Thanks, > > Ok i am now rebuilding the kernel and will report when i have results. http://pastebin.com/scgyDjhT and attached tcpdump [unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream] | |