From: suzuki Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc5 kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:41:27 +0530 Message-ID: <46E4FC2F.6040105@in.ibm.com> References: <46E121B8.4080105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6bffcb0e0709071656o6881fa17y61818a9733293a4c@mail.gmail.com> <1189289549.13713.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Michal Piotrowski , neilb@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kamalesh Babulal , bfields@fieldses.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, ffilz@us.ibm.com, Poornima To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUeOZ-0007Wu-5U for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:13:23 -0700 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IUeOd-0007IU-14 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:13:27 -0700 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8A8DILK001897 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:13:18 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8A8DJ26552040 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:13:19 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8A8DIHX004418 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:13:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1189289549.13713.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Hi I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the following. The pathconf() request gets a reply with : pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1 pathinfo.max_link = 255 Is this really an expected answer from a server for a proper connection ( for mount requests on an exported dir) ? Is there something that needs to be fixed at server side ? Thanks Suzuki Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal wrote: >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945! >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: SMP NR_CPUS=128 NUMA pSeries >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Modules linked in: nfs lockd nfs_acl >>> sunrpc ipv6 loop dm_mod ibmveth sg ibmvscsic sd_mod scsi_mod >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: NIP: d000000000378044 LR: >>> d000000000378034 CTR: 80000000001c5840 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: REGS: c0000000d971b050 TRAP: 0700 Not >>> tainted (2.6.23-rc5-ppc64) >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: MSR: 8000000000029032 CR: >>> 28000444 XER: 00000014 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: TASK = c000000002787740[11508] 'fsstress' >>> THREAD: c0000000d9718000 CPU: 1 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR00: 0000000000000001 c0000000d971b2d0 >>> d0000000003bd648 0000000000000037 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR04: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >>> 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR08: 0000000000000002 c000000000616538 >>> c0000000ef7afb58 c000000000616540 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR12: 0000000000004000 c0000000005e4a80 >>> 0000000000000000 00000000200b2510 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR16: 0000000020105550 00000000200b2534 >>> 000000002008c15c 0000000000000001 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR20: 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 >>> fffffffffffff000 c0000000d971ba30 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR24: d00000000034f524 c0000000dc4f8054 >>> c0000000d971b7d0 c0000000d9d313f0 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: GPR28: 0000000000000276 0000000022000000 >>> d0000000003b8d78 0000000000000000 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: NIP [d000000000378044] >>> .encode_lookup+0x6c/0xbc [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: LR [d000000000378034] >>> .encode_lookup+0x5c/0xbc [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Call Trace: >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b2d0] [d000000000378034] >>> .encode_lookup+0x5c/0xbc [nfs] (unreliable) >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b370] [d000000000379f8c] >>> .nfs4_xdr_enc_lookup+0x78/0xbc [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b440] [d000000000314534] >>> .rpcauth_wrap_req+0xe4/0x124 [sunrpc] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b4f0] [d00000000030a790] >>> .call_transmit+0x218/0x2b8 [sunrpc] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b590] [d0000000003124d8] >>> .__rpc_execute+0xd4/0x368 [sunrpc] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b630] [d00000000030b114] >>> .rpc_do_run_task+0xc8/0x104 [sunrpc] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b6e0] [d00000000030b224] >>> .rpc_call_sync+0x2c/0x64 [sunrpc] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b760] [d00000000036ef04] >>> ._nfs4_proc_lookupfh+0xd4/0x124 [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b850] [d0000000003719a0] >>> ._nfs4_proc_lookup+0x80/0x21c [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b910] [d000000000371ba4] >>> .nfs4_proc_lookup+0x68/0xac [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971b9c0] [d000000000354bf4] >>> .nfs_lookup+0x158/0x334 [nfs] >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971bbc0] [c0000000000f3a28] >>> .lookup_hash+0xfc/0x140 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971bc60] [c0000000000f7b28] >>> .sys_renameat+0x164/0x228 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: [c0000000d971be30] [c000000000008534] >>> syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Instruction dump: >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: e8410028 7fa4eb78 7c7f1b79 7fb80026 >>> 40820014 e8be83a8 e87e8350 4800c5f9 >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: e8410028 7fb80120 7c180026 54001ffe >>> <0b000000> 3800000f 7b850020 387f0008 >> Is this a post 2.6.22 regression? Have you tried 2.6.23-rc5-git1? >> (There are a few nfs fixes) >> >> Regards, >> Michal > > It looks like a bug that has been there at least since 2.6.18. Could you > see if this fixes it? > > Trond > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > No Subject > From: > Trond Myklebust > Date: > Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:10:51 +0200 > > > It doesn't look as if the NFSv4 name length is being initialised correctly > in the struct nfs_server. We need to limit any entry there to > NFS4_MAXNAMLEN. > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust > --- > > fs/nfs/client.c | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/client.c b/fs/nfs/client.c > index a49f9fe..54068fb 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/client.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/client.c > @@ -928,6 +928,9 @@ static int nfs4_init_server(struct nfs_server *server, > > error = nfs_init_server_rpcclient(server, authflavour); > > + if (server->namelen == 0 || server->namelen > NFS4_MAXNAMLEN) > + server->namelen = NFS4_MAXNAMLEN; > + > /* Done */ > dprintk("<-- nfs4_init_server() = %d\n", error); > return error; ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs