Re: [PATCH] nfs-utils: sm-notify does not remove its pid file.

2007-12-10 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday December 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It turns out that the sm-notify command, used to notify clients that they need to reclaim their locks because the server just changed state, does not clean up its pid file. The pid file is used to ensure only one instance of the process is

Re: [PATCH] nfs-utils: sm-notify does not remove its pid file.

2007-12-10 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday December 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neil Brown wrote: I was under the impression that /var/run was always cleaned out on reboot, so this shouldn't be a problem. Is my impression wrong? I don't think there are any guarantees about this. I was under the impression

[PATCH] memory leak when mounting and unmounting -onolock filesystems

2007-12-10 Thread Neil Brown
Hi Trond, We found that a machine which made moderately heavy use of 'automount' was leaking some nfs data structures - particularly the 4K allocated by rpc_alloc_iostats. It turns out that this only happens with filesystems with -onolock set. The problem is that if NFS_MOUNT_NONLM is set,

Re: [PATCH] memory leak when mounting and unmounting -onolock filesystems

2007-12-11 Thread Neil Brown
On Tuesday December 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 15:57 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: The problem is that if NFS_MOUNT_NONLM is set, nfs_start_lockd doesn't set server-destroy, so when the filesystem is unmounted, the -client_acl is not shutdown, and so several resources

Re: A new NFSv4 server...

2008-01-04 Thread Neil Brown
On Friday January 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, certainly. I was mainly thinking a replacement of the wire protocol would be an easier step for people to swallow than a new protocol. I've been thinking of trying to put together something like NFS v3.5. Some parts of v4 are nice,

Re: Man page update for timeo= and retrans= options.

2008-01-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday January 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Neil- I just spent two months and rewrote all of nfs(5). It should appear in the next release of nfs-utils. Steve, when can we expect to see the updated man page? I thought I had seem some rewrite go past, but it wasn't in my inbox any

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix lockd panic

2008-01-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday January 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This small patch has not been changed since our last discussion: http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/6348912.html To recap the issue, a client could ask for a posix lock that invokes: server calls nlm4svc_proc_lock() -

Re: [PATCH 1/6] SUNRPC: spin svc_rqst initialization to its own function

2008-01-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Saturday January 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Move the initialzation in __svc_create_thread that happens prior to thread creation to a new function. Export the function to allow services to have better control over the svc_rqst structs. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: [PATCH 5/6] NLM: Convert lockd to use kthreads

2008-01-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Saturday January 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have lockd_up start lockd using kthread_run. With this change, lockd_down now blocks until lockd actually exits, so there's no longer need for the waitqueue code at the end of lockd_down. This also means that only one lockd can be running at a

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Intro: convert lockd to kthread and fix use-after-free (try #7)

2008-01-10 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday January 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the seventh patchset to fix the use-after-free problem in lockd This patch set looks good now. I'm happy to give it a Reviewed-by: NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Two remaining issues that I would like to see address, but don't

Re: [PATCH 1/2] NLM failover unlock commands

2008-01-14 Thread Neil Brown
On Monday January 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +static ssize_t failover_unlock_ip(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t size) +{ + __be32 server_ip; + char *fo_path; + char *mesg; + + /* sanity check */ + if (size = 0) + return -EINVAL; Not only is

Re: [PATCH 1/2] NLM failover unlock commands

2008-01-15 Thread Neil Brown
On Tuesday January 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Revised version of the patch: * based on comment from Neil Brown, use sscanf() to parse IP address (a cool idea imo). * the ret inside nlm_traverse_files() is now the file count that can't be unlocked. * other minor changes from latest

Re: [PATCH 1/2] NLM failover unlock commands

2008-01-23 Thread Neil Brown
in nfsctl write methods Neil Brown points out that we're checking buf[size-1] in a couple places without first checking whether size is zero. Actually, given the implementation of simple_transaction_get(), buf[-1] is zero, so in both of these cases the subsequent check

Re: [PATCH 4/5] NFSD: Remove NFSD_TCP kernel build option

2008-02-04 Thread Neil Brown
On Tuesday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What might make sense is to remove NFSD_TCP, but add NFSD_UDP, defaulting to Y. Then in a year or two we can change the default to N. Fine by me. I, on the other hand, think we should leave support for UDP and TCP in the kernel

Wondering about NLM_HOST_MAX ... doesn't anyone understand this code?

2008-02-06 Thread Neil Brown
than 5 minutes every 2 minutes rather than discard hosts older than 2 minutes every minute even though the latter is what would have been in effect most of the time, as it seems more like what was intended. Thanks, NeilBrown Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Diffstat output ./fs

Re: [NFS] [PATCH] Make UDF exportable

2008-02-06 Thread Neil Brown
On Wednesday February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: + dotdot.d_name.name = ..; + dotdot.d_name.len = 2; + + lock_kernel(); + if (!udf_find_entry(child-d_inode, dotdot, fibh, cfi)) + goto out_unlock; Have you ever tried this? I think this could never work. UDF doesn't

Re: nfs new_cache mechanism and older kernel

2008-02-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi: I am wondering if there is a known issue with using the newer cache mechanism in NFS (by mounting nfsd filesystem on /proc/fs/nfsd) on an older kernel like 2.6.17 built for 64 bit archs. I am observing a peculiar problem. The moment nfs

RE: nfs new_cache mechanism and older kernel

2008-02-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, not sure if it would make any difference. I think one of them is the wall clock time (do_gettimeofday) and the xtime is the monotonic time. One can be obtained from other by adding/subtracting an offset value (wall_to_monotonic or

RE: nfs new_cache mechanism and older kernel

2008-02-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perfect! That was indeed the problem. Thank you so much. Btw, so when mountd starts, it checks whether or not the new cache mechanism is being used and acts accordingly, right? (I am being lazy by not going through the codebase to find that out

Re: Wondering about NLM_HOST_MAX ... doesn't anyone understand this code?

2008-02-07 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Neil- I don't have a problem with removing the variant expiry behavior -- in fact, I think it might be better if NLM host garbage collection was done only under memory pressure. Cool, thanks. - if (++nrhosts NLM_HOST_MAX) -

[PATCH] validateascii in idmapd.c access beyond end of array.

2008-02-17 Thread Neil Brown
If validateascii is passed a string containing only non-zero 7bit values, then the loop with exit with i == len, and the following test will access beyond the end of the array. So add an extra test to fix this. Found by Marcus Meissner [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Signed-off-by: NeilBrown [EMAIL

Re: Strange lockup during unmount in 2.6.22 - maybe rpciod deadlock?

2008-02-18 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday January 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 08:51 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: I have a report of an unusual NFS deadlock in OpenSuSE 10.3, which is based on 2.6.22. People who like bugzilla can find a little more detail at: https://bugzilla.novell.com

Re: mountd prevents spindown of non-exported disk

2008-02-20 Thread Neil Brown
On Wednesday February 20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I have two disks in my server, one of them (hda) being used for backups solely. To reduce noise level and power consumption, I have been trying to keep it running in standby mode (as opposed to active) most of the time. Although

Re: Strange lockup during unmount in 2.6.22 - maybe rpciod deadlock?

2008-02-20 Thread Neil Brown
On Tuesday February 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 16:34 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: On Thursday January 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 08:51 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: I have a report of an unusual NFS deadlock in OpenSuSE 10.3, which

Re: Strange lockup during unmount in 2.6.22 - maybe rpciod deadlock?

2008-02-20 Thread Neil Brown
On Tuesday February 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about moving the offending mntput calls off rpciod altogether? That way we can avoid both the deadlock with rpc_shutdown_client() and the deadlock with nfs_put_super(). The other advantage of doing this is that we move all those deadlocky

Re: mountd prevents spindown of non-exported disk

2008-02-21 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday February 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could always build your own nfs-utils and configure with --without-uuid. Not an ideal solution... What would be the downside of that solution? I suppose NFS would keep on working even if I disabled that switch, but you gave the

Re: Strange lockup during unmount in 2.6.22 - maybe rpciod deadlock?

2008-02-21 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday February 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 15:58 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: My question is: *why* cannot rpc_shutdown_client complete until all active rpc_tasks complete? The use of reference counting ensure that once they do all complete, the client