On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:07:08PM +0000, Jamie Heilman wrote: > Jamie Heilman wrote: > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 09:31:55PM +0000, Jamie Heilman wrote: > > > > [ugh, resent with the lkml headers unbroken, sorry about the dupe] > > > > > > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > J. Bruce Fields (2): > > > > > Revert "nfsd4: remove check_conflicting_opens warning" > > > > > Revert "nfsd4: a client's own opens needn't prevent delegations" > > > > > > > > Hrm, just got this when I udpated my nfs server (32bit Via EPIA system) > > > > from 5.10.20 to 5.10.25: > > > > > > > > [ 49.225914] NFSD: Using UMH upcall client tracking operations. > > > > [ 49.231919] NFSD: starting 90-second grace period (net f0000036) > > > > [ 50.036973] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > [ 50.041771] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2284 at fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:4968 > > > > nfsd4_process_open2+0xf9c/0x1170 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.051434] Modules linked in: md5 cpufreq_conservative > > > > cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_ondemand autofs4 quota_v2 > > > > quota_tree nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs lockd grace nfs_ssc fscache sunrpc > > > > xt_mark cls_fw sch_htb iptable_nat xt_nat nf_nat ipt_REJECT > > > > nf_reject_ipv4 xt_tcpudp xt_multiport iptable_mangle xt_state > > > > xt_conntrack nf_conntrack nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_log_ipv4 nf_log_common > > > > xt_LOG xt_limit iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables nhpoly1305 > > > > chacha_generic libchacha adiantum libpoly1305 dm_crypt dm_mod > > > > snd_hda_codec_via snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_intel_dspcfg > > > > snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep snd_hda_core snd_pcm snd_timer snd via_rhine > > > > psmouse soundcore mii via_agp sg via_velocity evdev agpgart > > > > [ 50.113386] CPU: 0 PID: 2284 Comm: nfsd Tainted: G T > > > > 5.10.25 #1 > > > > [ 50.120669] Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By > > > > O.E.M./To be filled by O.E.M., BIOS 080014 06/01/2009 > > > > [ 50.131652] EIP: nfsd4_process_open2+0xf9c/0x1170 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.137036] Code: 04 88 45 a4 88 07 8b 45 a0 8d 78 49 8b 45 84 8d 70 > > > > 01 e9 2b f8 ff ff c7 45 9c 00 00 00 00 31 ff bb 00 00 27 67 e9 04 f6 ff > > > > ff <0f> 0b e9 a0 f5 ff ff 0f b6 d4 0f a3 15 94 3f 23 f8 0f 83 b1 fd ff > > > > [ 50.155866] EAX: 00000000 EBX: 82da25b0 ECX: 830c0920 EDX: 00000000 > > > > [ 50.162187] ESI: 82da25b0 EDI: 82da55a0 EBP: 8310be68 ESP: 8310bddc > > > > [ 50.168507] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 00e0 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: > > > > 00010246 > > > > [ 50.175338] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00551e50 CR3: 03222000 CR4: 000006b0 > > > > [ 50.181654] Call Trace: > > > > [ 50.184165] ? inode_permission+0x17/0xc0 > > > > [ 50.188289] nfsd4_open+0x429/0x910 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.192483] ? nfsd4_encode_operation+0x185/0x1e0 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.197900] ? nfsd4_rename+0x1a0/0x1a0 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.202439] nfsd4_proc_compound+0x457/0x6c0 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.207419] nfsd_dispatch+0xdc/0x1a0 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.211816] svc_process_common+0x38a/0x650 [sunrpc] > > > > [ 50.216880] ? svc_xprt_do_enqueue+0xd7/0xe0 [sunrpc] > > > > [ 50.222017] ? svc_xprt_received+0x5d/0xf0 [sunrpc] > > > > [ 50.227000] ? nfsd_svc+0x300/0x300 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.231190] svc_process+0xa9/0xf0 [sunrpc] > > > > [ 50.235468] nfsd+0xcd/0x120 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.239025] kthread+0xe1/0x100 > > > > [ 50.242259] ? nfsd_destroy+0x50/0x50 [nfsd] > > > > [ 50.246588] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x30/0x30 > > > > [ 50.251165] ret_from_fork+0x1c/0x28 > > > > [ 50.254789] ---[ end trace 171bde4774bc9795 ]--- > > > > > > > > Can't readily reproduce it though, so likely a race condition or > > > > something that requires more state buildup than I have after a few > > > > minutes of uptime. Kernel config at > > > > http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/k/nfsd.config-5.10.25 in case you > > > > think this worth more investigation. > > > > > > Do you also have this issue in Linus's tree and the latest 5.11.y > > > release? > > > > Haven't tried it, but like I said, I couldn't even reproduce it again > > with 5.10.25, or booting between 5.10.20 to 5.10.25 again ... I'll > > give the others a shot and see if I can repro it there. > > Yeah, can't repro it with 5.11.8 or 5.12.0-rc3-00281-g1d4345eb51a1 > either, seems to have been a spurious thing.
I've seen at least one report previously, so it's not a regression. I'm not sure what's going on there. I think it might actually be possible if a CLOSE arrives from the client at exactly the wrong moment. In which case, all that happens here is we decline to give out a delegation. Probably the warning should just be removed. --b.
