Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755156Ab2FKOaO (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:30:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57080 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755097Ab2FKOaL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:30:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:29:47 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: Boaz Harrosh Cc: bfields , Steve Dickson , "Myklebust, Trond" , Joerg Platte , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , Hans de Bruin Subject: Re: Kernel 3.4.X NFS server regression Message-ID: <20120611102947.229cf077@corrin.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <4FD5F629.1070508@panasas.com> References: <4FD47D4E.9070307@naasa.net> <1339340441.4751.1.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20120611121634.GB7654@fieldses.org> <20120611083932.24e27e39@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4FD5F35A.3000903@panasas.com> <4FD5F629.1070508@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1835 Lines: 47 On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:44:09 +0300 Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 06/11/2012 04:32 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > On 06/11/2012 03:39 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > >>> > >>> But I'm guessing we were wrong to assume that existing setups that > >>> people perceived as working would have that path, because the failures > >>> in the absence of that path were probably less obvious. > >>> > > > One more thing, the most important one. We have already fixed that in the > past and I was hoping the lesson was learned. Apparently it was not, and > we are doomed to do this mistake for ever!! > > What ever crap fails times out and crashes, in the recovery code, we don't > give a dam. It should never affect any Server-client communication. > > When the grace periods ends the clients gates opens period. *Any* error > return from state recovery code must be carefully ignored and normal > operations resumed. At most on error, we move into a mode where any > recovery request from client is accepted, since we don't have any better > data to verify it. > > Please comb recovery code to make sure any catastrophe is safely ignored. > We already did that before and it used to work. > That's not the case, and hasn't ever been AFAICT. The code has changed a bit recently, but the existing behavior in this regard was preserved. >From nfs4_check_open_reclaim: return nfsd4_client_record_check(clp) ? nfserr_reclaim_bad : nfs_ok; ...if there is no client record, then the reclaim request fails. Doesn't the RFC mandate that? -- Jeff Layton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/