Bug#670505: [3.2.12 - 3.2.14 regression] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in nfs_mark_delegation_referenced
notfound 669270 linux-2.6/3.2.7-1
merge 670505 669270
tags 670505 + upstream patch moreinfo
quit
Hi Rik,
Rik Theys wrote:
It seems stable update 3.2.14 or 3.2.15 introduced a regression regarding
NFS4 delegations.
It seems to be the same issue as reported here[1] against the 3.3 kernel. It
was also intruduced
there between 3.3.0 and 3.3.1.
[...]
BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffb8
IP: [a048f016] nfs_mark_delegation_referenced+0x6/0x6 [nfs]
In [1], Jeff Layton says it looks like a regression introduced by
3114ea7a24d3 NFSv4: Return the delegation if the server returns
NFS4ERR_OPENMODE
and suggests a fix. Does this patch help?
-- 8 --
From: Trond Myklebust trond.mykleb...@netapp.com
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:31:25 -0400
Subject: NFSv4: Minor cleanups for nfs4_handle_exception and
nfs4_async_handle_error
commit 14977489ffdb80d4caf5a184ba41b23b02fbacd9 upstream.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust trond.mykleb...@netapp.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
---
Thanks,
Jonathan
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 757293b66dbb..626945f23afb 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static int nfs4_handle_exception(struct nfs_server *server,
int errorcode, struc
case 0:
return 0;
case -NFS4ERR_OPENMODE:
- if (nfs_have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ)) {
+ if (inode nfs_have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ)) {
nfs_inode_return_delegation(inode);
exception-retry = 1;
return 0;
@@ -277,10 +277,9 @@ static int nfs4_handle_exception(struct nfs_server
*server, int errorcode, struc
case -NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED:
case -NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED:
case -NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID:
- if (state != NULL)
- nfs_remove_bad_delegation(state-inode);
if (state == NULL)
break;
+ nfs_remove_bad_delegation(state-inode);
nfs4_schedule_stateid_recovery(server, state);
goto wait_on_recovery;
case -NFS4ERR_EXPIRED:
@@ -3730,8 +3729,9 @@ nfs4_async_handle_error(struct rpc_task *task, const
struct nfs_server *server,
case -NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED:
case -NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED:
case -NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID:
- if (state != NULL)
- nfs_remove_bad_delegation(state-inode);
+ if (state == NULL)
+ break;
+ nfs_remove_bad_delegation(state-inode);
case -NFS4ERR_OPENMODE:
if (state == NULL)
break;
--
1.7.10
--
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/20120426165127.GA3639@burratino
Bug#670505: [3.2.12 - 3.2.14 regression] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in nfs_mark_delegation_referenced
Hi Jonathan, On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Rik Theys wrote: It seems stable update 3.2.14 or 3.2.15 introduced a regression regarding NFS4 delegations. It seems to be the same issue as reported here[1] against the 3.3 kernel. It was also intruduced there between 3.3.0 and 3.3.1. [...] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffb8 IP: [a048f016] nfs_mark_delegation_referenced+0x6/0x6 [nfs] In [1], Jeff Layton says it looks like a regression introduced by 3114ea7a24d3 NFSv4: Return the delegation if the server returns NFS4ERR_OPENMODE and suggests a fix. Does this patch help? -- 8 -- From: Trond Myklebust trond.mykleb...@netapp.com Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:31:25 -0400 Subject: NFSv4: Minor cleanups for nfs4_handle_exception and nfs4_async_handle_error commit 14977489ffdb80d4caf5a184ba41b23b02fbacd9 upstream. If I read [1] correctly this patch was pushed in a Fedora update, and results in the following message being spewed at syslog by the thousands (filling the disk): NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: Lock reclaim failed! I will try applying the patch to the Debian kernel next week, but I assume it will have the same result. If so, I believe it would be better to revert the bad commit for now, and apply a complete fix later when it becomes available. Regards, Rik -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1204262107540.28...@helium.esat.kuleuven.be
Bug#670505: [3.2.12 - 3.2.14 regression] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in nfs_mark_delegation_referenced
Rik Theys wrote:
If I read [1] correctly this patch was pushed in a Fedora update,
and results in the following message being spewed at syslog by the
thousands (filling the disk):
NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: Lock reclaim failed!
Mm, sounds unpleasant. Here's a workaround, though it doesn't
leave me thrilled.
-- 8 --
From: William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:32:04 +0100
Subject: NFSv4: Rate limit the state manager for lock reclaim warning messages
commit 96dcadc2fdd111dca90d559f189a30c65394451a upstream.
Adding rate limit on `Lock reclaim failed` messages since it could fill
up system logs
Signed-off-by: William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust trond.mykleb...@netapp.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
---
fs/nfs/nfs4state.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
index 66020acf2ecd..9464a349f833 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
@@ -1186,7 +1186,8 @@ restart:
spin_lock(state-state_lock);
list_for_each_entry(lock, state-lock_states,
ls_locks) {
if (!(lock-ls_flags
NFS_LOCK_INITIALIZED))
- printk(%s: Lock reclaim
failed!\n,
+ pr_warn_ratelimited(
+ %s: Lock reclaim
failed!\n,
__func__);
}
spin_unlock(state-state_lock);
--
1.7.10
--
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/20120426192415.GF3639@burratino
