If an osd has no requests and no linger requests, __reset_osd()
will just remove it with a call to __remove_osd(). That drops
a reference to the osd, and therefore the osd may have been free
by the time __reset_osd() returns. That function offers no
indication this may have occurred, and as a res
A connection's socket can close for any reason, independent of the
state of the connection (and without irrespective of the connection
mutex). As a result, the connectino can be in pretty much any state
at the time its socket is closed.
Handle those other cases at the top of con_work(). Pull thi
This series includes two bug fixes that fix confirmed problems, and
two other changes that are technically fix bugs but which probably
won't cause any trouble.
-Alex
[PATCH 1/6] libceph: avoid using freed osd in __kick_osd_requests()
[PATCH 2/6] libceph: re
In kick_requests(), we need to register the request before we
unregister the linger request. Otherwise the unregister will
reset the request's osd pointer to NULL.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder
---
net/ceph/osd_client.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/ceph
Reformat __reset_osd() into three distinct blocks of code
handling the three return cases.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder
---
net/ceph/osd_client.c | 33 +++--
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c
i
In __unregister_linger_request(), the request is being removed
from the osd client's req_linger list only when the request
has a non-null osd pointer. It should be done whether or not
the request currently has an osd.
This is most likely a non-issue because I believe the request
will always have
It turns out to be harmless but the red-black node o_node in the
ceph osd structure is not initialized in create_osd(). Add a
call to rb_init_node() initialize it.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder
---
net/ceph/osd_client.c |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/
Hi All,
the docs continuously describe cephx as Kerberos-like, curious why
Kereros isn't used instead.
Developing new security protocols is almost always a bad idea from a
security perspective. I haven't looked deeply into cephx to see how
much is novel (and likely to contain novel bugs) ans how
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> Oooh, very nice! Do you have a list of the dependencies that you actually
> needed to install?
I can put that together. They were boost, gperf, fuse4x, cryptopp. I
think that might have been it.
> Apart from breaking this up into smaller
Oooh, very nice! Do you have a list of the dependencies that you actually
needed to install?
Apart from breaking this up into smaller patches, we'll also want to reformat
some of it. Rather than sticking an #if APPLE on top of every spin lock, we
should have utility functions that do this for u
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:07:05AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm hitting a btrfs locking issue with 3.7.0-rc8.
>
> The btrfs filesystem in question is backing a Ceph OSD
> under a heavy write load from many cephfs clients.
>
> I reported this issue a while ago:
> http://www.spinics.ne
11 matches
Mail list logo