From: Aaron Pace <Aaron.Pace@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Type mismatch causing stale client loop
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:01:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54BE0B6B.5090609@alcatel-lucent.com> (raw)
Hello,
I didn't see this issue reported already, but then, I didn't do a
terribly exhaustive search, so my apologies if this is already known.
I noticed that I was getting looping stale client errors while trying to
mount an NFS share (example below):
[ 965.926293] nfsd_dispatch: vers 4 proc 1
[ 965.973373] nfsv4 compound op #1/1: 35 (OP_SETCLIENTID)
[ 966.036158] renewing client (clientid 6f1df70d/00002580)
[ 966.099880] nfsv4 compound op ffff880450d51080 opcnt 1 #1: 35: status 0
[ 966.179190] nfsv4 compound returned 0
[ 966.223447] nfsd_dispatch: vers 4 proc 1
[ 966.270475] nfsv4 compound op #1/1: 36 (OP_SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM)
[ 966.341487] NFSD stale clientid (6f1df70d/00002580) boot_time 16f1df70d
[ 966.420791] nfsv4 compound op ffff880450d51080 opcnt 1 #1: 36: status
10022
[ 966.504419] nfsv4 compound returned 10022
[ 966.552738] nfsd_dispatch: vers 4 proc 1
The 'stale' error comes from nfs4state.c:
static int
STALE_CLIENTID(clientid_t *clid, struct nfsd_net *nn)
{
if (clid->cl_boot == nn->boot_time)
return 0;
dprintk("NFSD stale clientid (%08x/%08x) boot_time %08lx\n",
clid->cl_boot, clid->cl_id, nn->boot_time);
return 1;
}
I thought to myself -- 'Self, it seems statistically unlikely that a
legitimately mismatching cl_boot and nn->boot_time would have identical
lower 32-bits'.
As it turns out, nn->boot time is defined as time_t (unsigned long / 64
bits on a 64 bit platform), and cl_boot is defined as a u32.
My system time, as you may have guessed, was wildly invalid (2025-ish).
However, this does appear to be a legitimate issue in a 64-bit kernel
that will crop up in a few years. I was working in 3.10, but I verified
that the definitions are identical in the current 3.19 release candidate.
Sadly, I don't have the bandwidth (or the expertise) to really
understand the ramifications of what seems to be the logical next step,
changing cl_boot to be time_t instead of u32. I am hoping that this
will be trivial to look at for someone on this list.
Thanks,
-Aaron Pace
next reply other threads:[~2015-01-20 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-20 8:01 Aaron Pace [this message]
2015-01-20 15:18 ` Type mismatch causing stale client loop J. Bruce Fields
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=54BE0B6B.5090609@alcatel-lucent.com \
--to=aaron.pace@alcatel-lucent.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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.