MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120920161716.GB4521@fieldses.org>
References: <CAJ75kXZuM_p3qknD4RgdjLLWd393u02S5FKQyu3Q8y8NwmfiVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ75kXagDP6TPO+7pCCcUyac+ViPgKVThTsuehHNi_xwTpnGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHVgHyXMR=Bf02pWe=McHZPu+iNTZvhs6vHVx1ie404QebF86g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120920161716.GB4521@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:47:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHVgHyXDs7=rafH2_pQ7T0cwzoO-LGgtVB+8E_btt5E0v9YTdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: unhandled error -10026
From: Andy Adamson <androsadamson@gmail.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com>,
        Linux NFS mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        R.Eggermont@tudelft.nl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06:48PM -0400, Andy Adamson wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm getting a trace following an unhandled error on a linux nfs client
>> >> 3.4.7 x86_64.
>> >> NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: unhandled error -10026. Zeroing state
>> >
>> > For the moment I don't know if the error is coming from a bad server
>> > implementation or if it's on client side. Should I assume that this an
>> > error that should never hit the client?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The client only sends OPEN reclaims after noting the server has
>> rebooted due to previously receiving an NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID or
>> NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID error from a state-full operation  (RENEW, OPEN,
>> OPEN_DOWNGRADE, OPEN_CONFIRM, CLOSE, LOCK, LOCKU) which triggers the
>> client to establish a new clientid via
>> SETCLIENTID/SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM.
>>
>> Upon server reboot, all state that the previous server instance had is
>> invalid - including OPEN seqid's. So, the server returning
>> NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID (10026) on an OPEN reclaim is illegal.
>
> Wait, but couldn't there be multiple reclaims using the same open owner,
> in which case later reclaims could in theory hit BAD_SEQID?

Nope.

3530 section 9.1.6.  Sequencing of Lock Requests

   Note that for requests that contain a sequence number, for each
   state-owner, there should be no more than one outstanding request.

-->Andy
>
> --b.