From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
To: "John L. Males" <jlmales@softhome.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Al Viro <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4.27 - 2.4.29 tar: /dev/nst0: Warning: Cannot seek: Illegal seekg
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:38:46 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050302113846.GA1559@logos.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050302064434.152f2457.jlmales@softhome.net>
I'm ccing Linux kernel because this bug is also present in v2.6.
Andrew, Viro: tar --verify (which uses lseek) on SCSI tapes fails with:
tar: /dev/nst0: Warning: Cannot seek: Illegal seek
The problem was introduced by Viro's f_pos fixes which added "no_llseek"
as the llseek method in st.c.
John removed "no_llseek" and things are working again for him.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 06:44:34AM -0500, John L. Males wrote:
> Hi Marcello,
>
> I manage to complete the test using the suggested code change to st.c
> you requested. I did the change to 2.4.29. The tar --verify worked,
> but discovered a new tape file system bug that I very much believe if
> different issue.
> First question I would have is this code change test I made to st.c,
> is it only a quick means to access the issue for the kernel developers
> so they can created a more appropriate fix?
>
> Second question is your thought for this quick change as a temporary
> workaround.
I think this is the appropriate fix - AFAICS its legit to perform "llseek"
on tapes. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Third question, would you agree the new tape file system bug I found
> that I believe not realted to the tar: /dev/nst0: Warning: Cannot
> seek: Illegal seek I should report as a new eMail with one liner
> description of problem as subject?
Please report that problem separately!
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John L. Males
> Willowdale, Ontario
> Canada
> 02 March 2005 (06:28 -) 06:44
> 01 March 2005 (14:05 - 20:45)
>
>
> ********** Reply Seperator **********
>
> On (Tue) 2005-03-01 11:22:24 -0300
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote in Message-ID: 20050301142224.GA31152@logos.cnet
>
> To: "John L. Males" <jlmales@softhome.net>
> From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
> Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4.27 - 2.4.29 tar: /dev/nst0: Warning: Cannot
> seek: Illegal seekg
> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:22:24 -0300
>
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I'm very sorry for the delay.
> >
> > Please do the following:
> >
> > Edit drivers/char/st.c, line 3871:
> >
> > static struct file_operations st_fops =
> > {
> > owner: THIS_MODULE,
> > read: st_read,
> > write: st_write,
> > ioctl: st_ioctl,
> > llseek: no_llseek,
> > open: st_open,
> > flush: st_flush,
> > release: st_release,
> > };
> >
> > Comment out the "llseek" entry:
> >
> > static struct file_operations st_fops =
> > {
> > owner: THIS_MODULE,
> > read: st_read,
> > write: st_write,
> > ioctl: st_ioctl,
> > // llseek: no_llseek,
> > open: st_open,
> > flush: st_flush,
> > release: st_release,
> > };
> >
> > And retest.
> >
>
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, John L. Males wrote:
> > > Marcelo,
> > >
> > > > > ********** Reply Seperator **********
> > > > >
> > > > > On (Sat) 2005-02-26 07:50:52 -0300
> > > > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote in Message-ID:
> > > > > 20050226105052.GD16460@logos.cnet
> > > > >
> > > > > To: "John L. Males" <jlmales@softhome.net>
> > > > > From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Fw[05]: [BUG] 2.4.27 - 2.4.29 tar: /dev/nst0:
> > > > > Warning: Cannot seek: Illegal seek
> > > > > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:50:52 -0300
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi John,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:03:08AM -0500, John L. Males
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Marcelo,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have tried to post the attached bug to ther LKML about
> > > > > > > 13:10 yesterday and it has not posted, nor any message
> > > > > > > about why will not. I never had problems posting to the
> > > > > > > LKML in past, but it has been a couple years since I did.
> > > > > > > My current understanding is bugzilla if for reporting 2.6
> > > > > > > issues and not 2.4 issues. Is this correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are some v2.4 bugs reported at the bugzilla, but you
> > > > > > are right: bugzilla should be used for 2.6 issues only, I'm
> > > > > > personally tracking the v2.4 buglist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That being said, please contact me personally whenever you
> > > > > > have a 2.4 bugreport!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I searched high and low to find your eMail address and
> > > > > > > with no luck. I eMailed someone that made a patch realted
> > > > > > > to tapes just to find out how I can get the bug sent to
> > > > > > > you. They gave me your eMail address. I fully understand
> > > > > > > the problem of being a Kernel maintainer, not to mention
> > > > > > > the SPAM problems why I seemed unable to find your eMail
> > > > > > > address listed anywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A couple updates to the original bug eMail details that
> > > > > > > are attached. I do not believe the issue is controller
> > > > > > > specific, but just for record the system has two
> > > > > > > AHA-2940UW with 2.57.2 firmware. I looked at the delta
> > > > > > > patch for 2.4.26 to 2.4.27 and seems there were no AIC7XXX
> > > > > > > changes, there seemed to be some tape related changes and
> > > > > > > a llseek change. Not sure if that will help narrow the
> > > > > > > scope of bug I am experiencing. Someone suggested it was
> > > > > > > important issue to report to you and may be "introduced
> > > > > > > along with the f_pos race fixes".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, can you please try v2.4.27-rc4? The "f_pos race fixes"
> > > > > > have been introduced during v2.5.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can, but will likley be a few days before I have time to
> > > > > build and test as a few personal matters arose on Friday that
> > > > > will have my attention for a few days.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In case you confirm that 2.4.27-rc4 works, we should track
> > > > > > down the exact change which caused the problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you or someone that needs to have more details of the
> > > > > > > problem just eMail me. I am now using the 2.4.29 stock
> > > > > > > Kernel with no additional patches. I would think this is
> > > > > > > an important issue for those still needing to do tape
> > > > > > > backups using tar. Not sure if you have any other reports
> > > > > > > of this problem already of if those that do use tar are
> > > > > > > using an older kernel and so are not aware of the issue as
> > > > > > > yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you can help tracking this bug down! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your bugreport and sorry for taking so long to
> > > > > > answer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question: the latest v2.6 kernels also show the same problem
> > > > > > on tar--verify?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcelo I suspect you are still digging through your eMail and
> > > > > have not yet seen my eMail "Re[06]: [BUG] 2.4.27 - 2.4.29
> > > > > tar:/dev/nst0: Warning: Cannot seek: Illegal seek" of 25
> > > > > February 2005(17:45 -) 18:30 which answers the above question
> > > > > you had related to the 2.6 kernel. I have copied the part of
> > > > > the eMail that relates to your 2.6 kernel question below, but
> > > > > left the other question I posed as an aside to be answered
> > > > > later when you have time from that eMail:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcelo,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just an update. I managed to figure out how to load the
> > > > > 2940UW Kernel drivers from Knoppix listed as "CAUTION". Some
> > > > > of the AIC7xxx drivers do not work in the early Knoppix
> > > > > versions that have a 2.6 kernel in Knoppix. I know you do not
> > > > > maintain the 2.6 kernel. I just hought it might be helpful to
> > > > > have these observations in realtion to the 2.4 kernel bug I
> > > > > reported in case it is helpful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using Knoppix:
> > > > >
> > > > > V3.6 Kernel 2.6.7 tar verify for tape works
> > > > >
> > > > > V3.7 Kernel 2.6.9 tar verify for tape fails
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at the delta patches it seems in the 2.6.8 to 2.6.9
> > > > > patch set there are alot of llseek related changes, many more
> > > > > than in the 2.4.26 to 2.4.27 patch set. That said, there were
> > > > > very similar llseek patches in 2.4.9 and the 2.4.27 patch sets
> > > > > that I suspect may have some relationship to the bug I am
> > > > > experiencing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would be interested to know if the bug I reported can be
> > > > > duplicated and when the patch is created. The latter as
> > > > > sometimes reading the change log is is hard for me to deduce
> > > > > what the fix description may read like compared to the bug I
> > > > > experienced.
parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-02 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20050302064434.152f2457.jlmales@softhome.net>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050302113846.GA1559@logos.cnet \
--to=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jlmales@softhome.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.