Am 30.08.2013 16:10, schrieb Toralf Förster: > On 08/29/2013 03:30 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:57:45AM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Toralf Förster <toralf.foers...@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>>> On 08/27/2013 08:06 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:53:14PM -0400, bfields wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:36:40PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun 11-08-13 11:48:49, Toralf Förster wrote: >>>>>>>> so that the server either crashes (if it is a user mode linux image) >>>>>>>> or at least its reboot functionality got broken >>>>>>>> - if the NFS server is hammered with scary NFS calls using a fuzzy >>>>>>>> tool running at a remote NFS client under a non-privileged user id. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It can re reproduced, if >>>>>>>> - the NFS share is an EXT3 or EXT4 directory >>>>>>>> - and it is created at file located at tempfs and mounted via loop >>>>>>>> device >>>>>>>> - and the NFS server is forced to umount the NFS share >>>>>>>> - and the server forced to restart the NSF service afterwards >>>>>>>> - and trinity is used >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I could find a scenario for an automated bisect. 2 times it brought >>>>>>>> this commit >>>>>>>> commit 68a3396178e6688ad7367202cdf0af8ed03c8727 >>>>>>>> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> Date: Thu Mar 21 11:21:50 2013 -0400 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nfsd4: shut down more of delegation earlier >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the report. I think I see the problem--after this commit >>>>>> nfs4_set_delegation() failures result in nfs4_put_delegation being >>>>>> called, but nfs4_put_delegation doesn't free the nfs4_file that has >>>>>> already been set by alloc_init_deleg(). >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me think about how to fix that.... >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the slow response--can you check whether this fixes the >>>>> problem? >>>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> With the attached patch the problem can't be reproduced any longer with >>>> the prepared test case and current git kernels. >>> >>> BTW: Is nobody else fuzz testing NFS? >> >> I don't know. Toralf's reports are the only ones I recall off the top >> of my head, but I may have forgotten others. >> > > well, 7255e71 and 3c50ba8 I'd say. > >>> Or are these bugs just more likely to hit on UML? > > This definitely not. I observed at a real system EXT4 corruptions/ > issues but reported them to the EXT4 mailing list. > It just took me a longer time to figure out a reliable configuration > with 2 UML machiens to automatic bisect it. > > >> That's also possible. >> >>> This is not the first NFS issue found by Toralf using UML and Trinity. >> >> Yep. The testing is definitely appreciated. > > Thx - in the mean while although my UML bisect scripts are working fine > and trinity is stable enough even in UML environments to be trust worth.
That's good to know. Thanks you and trinity we got rid of some nasty UML bugs. Thanks, //richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
