Re: [PATCH] nfsd: check passed socket's net matches NFSd superblock's one

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:57:46PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 19.02.2014 18:50, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:26:33PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> >>18.02.2014 19:44, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:19:31PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> >>>>18.02.2014 02:19, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >>>>>On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:51:20AM +0800, Weng Meiling wrote:
> >>>>>>Hi Bruce,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The upstream has merged your git tree for-3.14, but there is no this patch?
> >>>>>>Do you forget this patch?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Apologies, I'm not sure what happened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Looking back at it....  The patch causes all my pynfs reboot recovery
> >>>>>tests to fail.  They're just doing a "systemctl restart
> >>>>>nfs-server.service", and "systemctl status nfs-server.service" shows in
> >>>>>part
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	ExecStart=/usr/sbin/rpc.nfsd $RPCNFSDARGS $RPCNFSDCOUNT (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So the patch is causing rpc.nfsd to fail?  No network namespaces should
> >>>>>be involved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I haven't investigated any further.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi Bruce,
> >>>>Are you sure, that exactly this patch broke your pynfs tests?
> >>>>BTW, systemd manipulates namespaces. Maybe the patch revealed some pynfs internal bugs?
> >>>>What do you think?
> >>>
> >>>It's really just "systemctl restart nfs-server.service" that the patch
> >>>breaks, pynfs isn't involved much.
> >>>
> >>>The patch I'm actually using follows, but I believe the only difference
> >>>is in the printk message?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yep, looks true.
> >>That's strange: "systemctl restart nfs-server.service" works for me on Fedora 18 with kernel, based on your repo.
> >
> >OK, I'll take a closer look and let you know what I find.
> >
> 
> Thank you, Bruce!

rpc.nfsd's attempt to bind port 2049 the second time is failing with
EADDRINUSE.

svc_alien_sock isn't failing, so the only different here is that we're
running sockfd_lookup....

Does that take a reference on the fd or the sock that needs to be put?

--b.