On Dec 25, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:35:17 +0100 Gianluca Alberici
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I can do better. I have investigated a bit the problem:
1) The problem arises only with the userspace nfsd (Universal nfsd
2.2).
I have realized that the latest patches introduced in 2.6.22 have
changed a lot of things into NFS.
2) The following code has been debugged with sunrpc.rpc_debug and
sunrpc.nfs_debug
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int fp;
if ((fp=open("/mnt/tmp/test",O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC,
S_IRWXU )) == -1) printf("ERR: %d\n",errno);
else {
write(fp, argv[1], strlen(argv[1]));
printf("OK\n");
close(fp);
};
}
2b) The output
[...]
<8>NFS call setattr
<8>RPC: new task initialized, procpid 18656
<8>RPC: allocated task f7bec500
<8>RPC: 0 looking up UNIX cred
<8>RPC: 740 __rpc_execute flags=0x480
<8>RPC: 740 call_start nfs2 proc 2 (sync)
<8>RPC: 740 call_reserve (status 0)
<8>RPC: 740 reserved req f1416000 xid 643f3c42
<8>RPC: 740 call_reserveresult (status 0)
<8>RPC: 740 call_allocate (status 0)
<8>RPC: 740 allocated buffer of size 528 at e627b800
<8>RPC: 740 call_bind (status 0)
<8>RPC: 740 call_connect xprt f70d4000 is connected
<8>RPC: 740 call_transmit (status 0)
<8>RPC: 740 xprt_prepare_transmit
<8>RPC: 740 xprt_cwnd_limited cong = 0 cwnd = 512
<8>RPC: 740 call_encode (status 0)
<8>RPC: 740 marshaling UNIX cred f4efcb40
<8>RPC: 740 using AUTH_UNIX cred f4efcb40 to wrap rpc data
<8>RPC: 740 xprt_transmit(148)
<8>RPC: xs_udp_data_ready...
<8>RPC: cong 256, cwnd was 512, now 512
<8>RPC: 740 xid 643f3c42 complete (28 bytes received)
<8>RPC: xs_udp_send_request(148) = 148
<8>RPC: 740 xmit complete
<8>RPC: wake_up_next(f70d4114 "xprt_resend")
<8>RPC: wake_up_next(f70d40e4 "xprt_sending")
<8>RPC: 740 call_status (status 28)
<8>RPC: 740 call_decode (status 28)
<8>RPC: 740 validating UNIX cred f4efcb40
<8>RPC: 740 using AUTH_UNIX cred f4efcb40 to unwrap rpc data
<8>RPC: 740 call_decode result -22
<8>RPC: 740 return 0, status -22
<8>RPC: 740 release task
<8>RPC: freeing buffer of size 528 at e627b800
<8>RPC: 740 release request f1416000
<8>RPC: wake_up_next(f70d4174 "xprt_backlog")
<8>RPC: 740 releasing UNIX cred f4efcb40
<8>RPC: rpc_release_client(f6f1f880)
<8>NFS reply setattr: -22
[...]
3) It turns out the following:
- setattr returns EINVAL due to...
- RPC call_decode returns status 22
4) In conclusion in my understanding:
- At present linux nfs filesystem support is not anymore
compatible with
old userspace servers like universal nfsd and crypto filesystems
as cfsd
(which is an nfs server pretty old fashioned).
Linux NFS client issues with servers that are old or not widely used
should be reported to [email protected] (thanks for
forwarding this, Andrew).
User space servers are usually not tested with NFS client changes,
since their use is infrequent compared with Solaris, NetApp filers,
and the Linux knfsd (and several others). We have to draw the line
somewhere to make NFS client development a manageable process.
- This problem makes UNFSD and CFSD unusable on 2.6.22 and up (this
doesnt sound good to me)
It's likely the NFS client team is not aware of problems with these
servers simply because none of us run them, and nothing has been
reported so far.
The question are:
- Is this wanted or is a bug ?
An EINVAL return is fairly generic, but since it is coming from the
reply path on the client, that probably indicates that decoding the
reply failed somehow. That could be a client problem, or the server
reply was incorrect or corrupt.
More specific information about the problem is needed. Could we see
a wire trace? A raw tcpdump or tethereal dump captured during the
problematic interaction would be helpful. Maybe even an strace of
the failing application would tell us what the arguments for the
setattr() call are. And what are your mount options, especially
which NFS version? (cat /proc/mounts)
Have you tried a 'git bisect' or something similar to track down
exactly when client behavior changed?
- Can this be solved with some backwards compat stuff into the
kernel or
all the old packages as UNFSD have to be
bugfixed/upgraded
If NFS servers don't conform to the NFS protocol specification, then
it's unlikely that the NFS client will be changed to fix such
issues. Ie: server bugs need to be fixed on the server. That is
sometimes difficult if the server is not maintained, for instance.
- I have found other strange behaviors of the new NFS filesystem
support
that i am investigating. All are bound to the user of
old userspace servers onto the new NFS (since 2.6.22). What to do ?
Report the problems on the [email protected] mailing list, or
document them in the official bug databases (either the Linux kernel
bugzilla or the NFSv4 bug tracker at http://bugzilla.linux-nfs.org/
I'm not sure what the NFS client's policy is regarding support for
userspace servers. But I'd certainly hope that it is "don't break
them".
The general policy is that if a server behaves in ways that don't
conform to the NFS spec, then the Linux NFS client probably won't
work with it. If the client works with a broken server today, there
is no guarantee that it will continue to work.
Which would make this an NFS client regression.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
