Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:17:16 -0400
To: Andy Adamson <androsadamson@gmail.com>
Cc: William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com>,
        Linux NFS mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        R.Eggermont@tudelft.nl
Subject: Re: unhandled error -10026
Message-ID: <20120920161716.GB4521@fieldses.org>
References: <CAJ75kXZuM_p3qknD4RgdjLLWd393u02S5FKQyu3Q8y8NwmfiVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ75kXagDP6TPO+7pCCcUyac+ViPgKVThTsuehHNi_xwTpnGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHVgHyXMR=Bf02pWe=McHZPu+iNTZvhs6vHVx1ie404QebF86g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CAHVgHyXMR=Bf02pWe=McHZPu+iNTZvhs6vHVx1ie404QebF86g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

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?

--b.