RHEL 7.5 GA was released earlier this morning. Just to confirm, I tested Gary's 1.6.x patch again with the new kernel for RHEL 7.5 GA (3.10.0-862.el7.x86_64) and it still fixes the ENOTDIR issue and I also don't see any other issues with OpenAFS and this new RHEL release (at least not at this time).
Looking forward to a 1.6.22.3 release soon! 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 Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Stephan Wiesand <stephan.wies...@desy.de> wrote: > > > On 23. Mar 2018, at 12:27, Kodiak Firesmith <kfiresm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I've also tested gsgatlin's 7.5beta RPMs and they work great. Any > chance we'll see the rh75enotdir patch integrated into a release of > 1.6.22.3 soon? I'm wondering if it'll be worth it to manually apply that > patch to a rebuild of the official OpenAFS RPMs if this isn't on the block > for being merged and released soon - but I don't want to blow the time > applying that patch to a re-roll if a fixed official release is forthcoming. > > We are planning to release a 1.6.22.3 addressing the ENOTDIR issue with > the EL7.5 kernel soon after the EL7.5 GA release. > > - Stephan > > > Thanks! > > - Kodiak > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Anders Nordin <anders.j.nor...@ltu.se> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Is there any progress on this issue? Can we expect a stable release for > RHEL 7.5? > > > > MVH > > Anders > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-info-admin@ope > nafs.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk > > Sent: den 9 februari 2018 01:02 > > To: Kodiak Firesmith <kfiresm...@gmail.com> > > Cc: openafs-info <openafs-info@openafs.org> > > Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] RHEL 7.5 beta / 3.10.0-830.el7.x86_66 kernel lock > up > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:46:28AM -0500, Kodiak Firesmith wrote: > > > Hello again All, > > > > > > As part of continued testing, I've been able to confirm that the > > > SystemD double-service startup thing only happens to my hosts when > > > going from RHEL > > > 7.4 to RHEL 7.5beta. On a test host installed directly as RHEL > > > 7.5beta, I get a bit farther with 1.6.18.22, in that I get to the > > > point where OpenAFS "kind of" works. > > > > Thanks for tracking this down. The rpm packaging maintainers may want > to try to track down why the double-start happens in the upgrade scenario, > as that's pretty nasty behavior. > > > > > What I'm observing is that the openafs client Kernel module (built by > > > DKMS) loads fine, and just so long as you know where you need to go in > > > /afs, you can get there, and you can read and write files and the > OpenAFS 'fs' > > > command works. But doing an 'ls' of /afs or any path underneath > > > results in > > > "ls: reading directory /afs/: Not a directory". > > > > > > I ran an strace of a good RHEL 7.4 host running ls on /afs, and a RHEL > > > 7.5beta host running ls on /afs and have created pastebins of both, as > > > well as an inline diff. > > > > > > All can be seen at the following locations: > > > > > > works > > > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/Hiojt2~Be3wgez47bKNucQ > > > > > > fails > > > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/13ZXBfJIOMsuEJFwFShBfg > > > > > > > > > diff > > > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/FJKRwep1fWJogIDbLnkn8A > > > > > > Hopefully this might help the OpenAFS devs, or someone might know what > > > might be borking on every RHEL 7.5 beta host. It does fit with what > > > other > > > 7.5 beta users have observed OpenAFS doing. > > > > Yes, now it seems like all our reports are consistent, and we just have > to wait for a developer to get a better look at what Red Hat changed in the > kernel that we need to adapt to. > > > > -Ben > > > > > Thanks! > > > - Kodiak > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Stephan Wiesand > > > <stephan.wies...@desy.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04.Feb 2018, at 02:11, Jeffrey Altman <jalt...@auristor.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2/2/2018 6:04 PM, Kodiak Firesmith wrote: > > > > >> I'm relatively new to handling OpenAFS. Are these problems part > > > > >> of a normal "kernel release; openafs update" cycle and perhaps > > > > >> I'm getting snagged just by being too early of an adopter? I > > > > >> wanted to raise the alarm on this and see if anything else was > > > > >> needed from me as the reporter of the issue, but perhaps that's > > > > >> an overreaction to what is just part of a normal process I just > > > > >> haven't been tuned into in prior RHEL release cycles? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kodiak, > > > > > > > > > > On RHEL, DKMS is safe to use for kernel modules that restrict > > > > > themselves to using the restricted set of kernel interfaces (the > > > > > RHEL KABI) that Red Hat has designated will be supported across > > > > > the lifespan of the RHEL major version number. OpenAFS is not > > > > > such a kernel module. As a result it is vulnerable to breakage > each and every time a new kernel is shipped. > > > > > > > > Jeffrey, > > > > > > > > the usual way to use DKMS is to either have it build a module for a > > > > newly installed kernel or install a prebuilt module for that kernel. > > > > It may be possible to abuse it for providing a module built for > > > > another kernel, but I think that won't happen accidentally. > > > > > > > > You may be confusing DKMS with RHEL's "KABI tracking kmods". Those > > > > should be safe to use within a RHEL minor release (and the SL > > > > packaging has been using them like this since EL6.4), but aren't > > > > across minor releases (and that's why the SL packaging modifies the > > > > kmod handling to require a build for the minor release in question. > > > > > > > > > There are two types of failures that can occur: > > > > > > > > > > 1. a change results in failure to build the OpenAFS kernel module > > > > > for the new kernel > > > > > > > > > > 2. a change results in the OpenAFS kernel module building and > > > > > successfully loading but failing to operate correctly > > > > > > > > The latter shouldn't happen within a minor release, but can across > > > > minor releases. > > > > > > > > > It is the second of these possibilities that has taken place with > > > > > the release of the 3.10.0-830.el7 kernel shipped as part of the > > > > > RHEL 7.5 > > > > beta. > > > > > > > > > > Are you an early adopter of RHEL 7.5 beta? Absolutely, its a beta > > > > > release and as such you should expect that there will be bugs and > > > > > that third party kernel modules that do not adhere to the KABI > > > > > functionality might have compatibility issues. > > > > > > > > The -830 kernel can break 3rd-party modules using non-whitelisted > > > > ABIs, whether or not they adhere to the "KABI functionality". > > > > > > > > > There was a compatibility issue with RHEL 7.4 kernel > > > > > (3.10.0_693.1.1.el7) as well that was only fixed in the OpenAFS > > > > > 1.6 release series this past week as part of 1.6.22.2: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.openafs.org/dl/openafs/1.6.22.2/RELNOTES-1.6.22.2 > > > > > > > > Yes, and this one was hard to fix. Thanks are due to Mark Vitale for > > > > developing the fix and all those who reviewed and tested it. > > > > > > > > > Jeffrey Altman > > > > > AuriStor, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. - Welcome to the community. > > > > > > > > Seconded. In particular, the problem report regarding the EL7.5beta > > > > kernel was absolutely appropriate. > > -- > Stephan Wiesand > DESY -DV- > Platanenallee 6 > 15738 Zeuthen, Germany > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > OpenAFS-info@openafs.org > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info >
