[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel 3.4.X NFS server regression
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:44:09 +0300
Boaz Harrosh <> wrote:

> On 06/11/2012 04:32 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > On 06/11/2012 03:39 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> But I'm guessing we were wrong to assume that existing setups that
> >>> people perceived as working would have that path, because the failures
> >>> in the absence of that path were probably less obvious.
> >>>
> One more thing, the most important one. We have already fixed that in the
> past and I was hoping the lesson was learned. Apparently it was not, and
> we are doomed to do this mistake for ever!!
> What ever crap fails times out and crashes, in the recovery code, we don't
> give a dam. It should never affect any Server-client communication.
> When the grace periods ends the clients gates opens period. *Any* error
> return from state recovery code must be carefully ignored and normal
> operations resumed. At most on error, we move into a mode where any
> recovery request from client is accepted, since we don't have any better
> data to verify it.
> Please comb recovery code to make sure any catastrophe is safely ignored.
> We already did that before and it used to work.

That's not the case, and hasn't ever been AFAICT. The code has changed
a bit recently, but the existing behavior in this regard was preserved.
From nfs4_check_open_reclaim:

return nfsd4_client_record_check(clp) ? nfserr_reclaim_bad : nfs_ok;

...if there is no client record, then the reclaim request fails. Doesn't
the RFC mandate that?

Jeff Layton <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-11 22:21    [W:0.084 / U:15.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site