Hi Mark,

Thanks for the info.

Can you elaborate on what exactly would result if it "unsafely continue its
“walk” of the d_alias list after dropping the i_lock"? Kernel panic/crash?
Segfault? Data corruption?

We've been running the current 1.6.x patch (12796 with 1.6.22) on a
production system (where we've seen the getcwd issue) this week since this
past Sunday morning and haven't encountered any getcwd or other issues
resulting from it so far (at least from what we've been able to see).

Do you (or anyone else) have any kind of ETA as to when the master patches
may be ready to be merged and a proper 1.6.x backport can be created (or
better yet, when a 1.6.x release with that backport will be released)? Are
we talking weeks? Sometime early/mid/late next month? The month after? Any
ideas would be helpful.

Thanks!

--
Matt Vander Werf
HPC System Administrator
University of Notre Dame
Center for Research Computing - Union Station
506 W. South Street
South Bend, IN 46601
Phone: (574) 631-0692

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Mark Vitale <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> > On Dec 5, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Matt Vander Werf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I've created RPMs using the source (1.6.21.1) with this patch and have
> installed it on several systems running the latest RHEL 7.4 kernel. I
> haven’t noticed any issues from the fixes (can't say my testing has been
> exhaustive though), but these also aren't very busy systems and I also
> haven't ever seen the getcwd issues on these systems either.
>
> Thank you for doing this testing.  I did not experience any problems with
> the 1.6.x patch (https://gerrit.openafs.org/#/c/12796/1) in my testing
> either.  However, after further work
> on the master patches, I no longer recommend 12796 because it may unsafely
> continue
> its “walk” of the d_alias list after dropping the i_lock.
>
> Since we are getting closer on the master patches, I don’t plan to produce
> another 1.6.x
> “emergency” patch.  Instead, I’ll wait until the master patches are
> merged, then produce a
> proper 1.6.x backport from that.
>
> Regards,
> —
> Mark Vitale
>
>
>

Reply via email to