On 08/30/2013 04:36 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > 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.
yeah, but there's (among others) one of them still in the wild: If I start an UML and resize the terminal (KDE Konsole) during the boot phase then it just crashes sometimes. > Thanks, > //richard > > -- MfG/Sincerely Toralf Förster pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
