Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 10:20 +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote: > On 02/06/2018 01:24 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > Does the following fix the issue? > > > > 8<--- > > From 9b30889c548a4d45bfe6226e58de32504c1d682f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: Trond

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 10:20 +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote: > On 02/06/2018 01:24 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > Does the following fix the issue? > > > > 8<--- > > From 9b30889c548a4d45bfe6226e58de32504c1d682f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: Trond

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On 02/06/2018 01:24 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Does the following fix the issue? > > 8<--- > From 9b30889c548a4d45bfe6226e58de32504c1d682f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Trond Myklebust > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On 02/06/2018 01:24 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Does the following fix the issue? > > 8<--- > From 9b30889c548a4d45bfe6226e58de32504c1d682f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Trond Myklebust > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:20:06 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH]

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 22:31 +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote: > Hi Trond, Steven, > > eversince I switched from Debian Jessie to Stretch last summer, I've > been seeing the very same hidden ports on an NFS server as described > in > [1], which is a follow-up to [2]. > > Your patch ([3], [4]) solved

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 22:31 +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote: > Hi Trond, Steven, > > eversince I switched from Debian Jessie to Stretch last summer, I've > been seeing the very same hidden ports on an NFS server as described > in > [1], which is a follow-up to [2]. > > Your patch ([3], [4]) solved

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

Hi Trond, Steven, eversince I switched from Debian Jessie to Stretch last summer, I've been seeing the very same hidden ports on an NFS server as described in [1], which is a follow-up to [2]. Your patch ([3], [4]) solved the issue back then. Later on, you changed that fix again in [5], which

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

Hi Trond, Steven, eversince I switched from Debian Jessie to Stretch last summer, I've been seeing the very same hidden ports on an NFS server as described in [1], which is a follow-up to [2]. Your patch ([3], [4]) solved the issue back then. Later on, you changed that fix again in [5], which

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:07:26 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > I can reproduce this by having the client unmount and remount the > directory. It gets even more interesting. When I unmount the directory, the hidden port does not go away. It is still there. But if I mount it

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:07:26 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > I can reproduce this by having the client unmount and remount the > directory. It gets even more interesting. When I unmount the directory, the hidden port does not go away. It is still there. But if I mount it again, it goes away

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:30:42 + Trond Myklebust wrote: > Wait. So the NFS mount is still active, it’s just that the socket > disconnected due to no traffic? That should be OK. Granted that the > port can’t be reused by another process, but you really don’t want >

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:30:42 + Trond Myklebust wrote: > Wait. So the NFS mount is still active, it’s just that the socket > disconnected due to no traffic? That should be OK. Granted that the > port can’t be reused by another process, but you really don’t want > that: what if there are no

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:23, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:17:47 + > Trond Myklebust wrote: > >>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 08:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> >>> [ resending as a new email, as I'm assuming

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:23, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:17:47 + > Trond Myklebust wrote: > >>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 08:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> >>> [ resending as a new email, as I'm assuming people do not sort their >>> INBOX via last email on thread, thus my

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:23:41 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > I can add more trace_printk()s if it would help. I added a trace_printk() in inet_bind_bucket_destroy() to print out some information on the socket used by xs_bind(), and it shows that the bind destroy is called,

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:23:41 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > I can add more trace_printk()s if it would help. I added a trace_printk() in inet_bind_bucket_destroy() to print out some information on the socket used by xs_bind(), and it shows that the bind destroy is called, but the list is not

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:17:47 + Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 08:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > [ resending as a new email, as I'm assuming people do not sort their > > INBOX via last email on thread, thus my last email is

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:17:47 + Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 08:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > [ resending as a new email, as I'm assuming people do not sort their > > INBOX via last email on thread, thus my last email is sitting in the > > bottom of everyone's INBOX

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 08:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [ resending as a new email, as I'm assuming people do not sort their > INBOX via last email on thread, thus my last email is sitting in the > bottom of everyone's INBOX ] > > I've hit this again. Not sure when it

Re: It's back! (Re: [REGRESSION] NFS is creating a hidden port (left over from xs_bind() ))

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 08:59, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [ resending as a new email, as I'm assuming people do not sort their > INBOX via last email on thread, thus my last email is sitting in the > bottom of everyone's INBOX ] > > I've hit this again. Not sure when it started, but I applied