Bug#568288: mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:32:32PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: As noted above, I only had version 4 configured in one of them: might that have upset the negotiation/default somehow? It might if the export was not configured to be for NFSv4 (with an fsid=0 entry etc). Another possibility is a bug in an older version of the Debian package or using an older kernel at the other end AFAICS. Can you still reproduce this issue or are you fine with me closing this bug? I will have to find time to experiment. I still think the error message could be improved, although I guess if mount is talking to a kernel which is not configured for the right version, it is a tall order for it to diagnose that that is the problem. ael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2011032844.GA2341@elf.conquest
Bug#568288: mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument
Hi Mounting an nfs file system suddenly stopped working with errors like this: -- # mount.nfs exact:/ /mnt/exact -v mount.nfs: timeout set for Wed Feb 3 16:09:00 2010 mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'addr=192.168.0.5,vers=4,clientaddr=192.168.0.3' mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument mount.nfs: an incorrect mount option was specified -- Both systems (that on which the mount was issued and the server) were running testing. They were, however using custom kernels, but these had worked without problems until today. Only the server was set up for nfs version 4 which seems to be the heart of the problem from the message about the text based options above - see below as well. I guess it's an old kernel? The problem was resolved by adding either -o nfsvers=2 or -o nfsvers-3 to the mount command. Thus there seems to be some sort of problem negotiating the nfs version between the client server? And a totally misleading error message? The default changed to version 4, but that does not work with old kernels, so I guess that's the problem? That would also explain the error message. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d864a2f@debian.org
Bug#568288: mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 07:40:47PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: Hi Mounting an nfs file system suddenly stopped working with errors like this: -- # mount.nfs exact:/ /mnt/exact -v mount.nfs: timeout set for Wed Feb 3 16:09:00 2010 mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'addr=192.168.0.5,vers=4,clientaddr=192.168.0.3' mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument mount.nfs: an incorrect mount option was specified -- Both systems (that on which the mount was issued and the server) were running testing. They were, however using custom kernels, but these had worked without problems until today. Only the server was set up for nfs version 4 which seems to be the heart of the problem from the message about the text based options above - see below as well. I guess it's an old kernel? Actually, no. I either run the current Debian kernel, or the latest from stable-git, compiled locally, of course. The problem was resolved by adding either -o nfsvers=2 or -o nfsvers-3 to the mount command. Thus there seems to be some sort of problem negotiating the nfs version between the client server? And a totally misleading error message? The default changed to version 4, but that does not work with old kernels, so I guess that's the problem? I don't think it can be: I was running kernel.org kernels, later then Debian testing. I can't remember what version I was at when I reported the bug: I confess that I had forgotten about the report. Maybe I had something wrong in the kernel configs, but I doubt it. As noted above, I only had version 4 configured in one of them: might that have upset the negotiation/default somehow? ael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110320221117.GA3806@precise.conquest
Bug#568288: mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument
On 03/20/2011 11:11 PM, ael wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 07:40:47PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: Hi Mounting an nfs file system suddenly stopped working with errors like this: -- # mount.nfs exact:/ /mnt/exact -v mount.nfs: timeout set for Wed Feb 3 16:09:00 2010 mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'addr=192.168.0.5,vers=4,clientaddr=192.168.0.3' mount.nfs: mount(2): Invalid argument mount.nfs: an incorrect mount option was specified -- Both systems (that on which the mount was issued and the server) were running testing. They were, however using custom kernels, but these had worked without problems until today. Only the server was set up for nfs version 4 which seems to be the heart of the problem from the message about the text based options above - see below as well. I guess it's an old kernel? Actually, no. I either run the current Debian kernel, or the latest from stable-git, compiled locally, of course. The problem was resolved by adding either -o nfsvers=2 or -o nfsvers-3 to the mount command. Thus there seems to be some sort of problem negotiating the nfs version between the client server? And a totally misleading error message? The default changed to version 4, but that does not work with old kernels, so I guess that's the problem? I don't think it can be: I was running kernel.org kernels, later then Debian testing. I can't remember what version I was at when I reported the bug: I confess that I had forgotten about the report. Maybe I had something wrong in the kernel configs, but I doubt it. As noted above, I only had version 4 configured in one of them: might that have upset the negotiation/default somehow? It might if the export was not configured to be for NFSv4 (with an fsid=0 entry etc). Another possibility is a bug in an older version of the Debian package or using an older kernel at the other end AFAICS. Can you still reproduce this issue or are you fine with me closing this bug? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d868080.2060...@debian.org
