From: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc: "dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"krzk@kernel.org" <krzk@kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [BISECT BUG] NFS v4 root not working after 6d972518b821 ("NFS: Add fs_context support.")
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:32:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200117153208.GB3111@aion.usersys.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b31b09abeea4982e038b0e66e45889bb2c9df750.camel@hammerspace.com>
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 15:12 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > mount.nfs4 -o vers=4,nolock 192.168.1.10:/srv/nfs/odroidhc1
> > > /new_root
> >
> > Okay, it looks like the mount command makes two attempts at mounting.
> > Firstly, it does this:
> >
> > > [ 22.938314] NFSOP 'source=192.168.1.10:/srv/nfs/odroidhc1'
> > > [ 22.942638] NFSOP 'nolock=(null)'
> > > [ 22.945772] NFSOP 'vers=4.2'
> > > [ 22.948660] NFSOP 'addr=192.168.1.10'
> > > [ 22.952350] NFSOP 'clientaddr=192.168.1.12'
> > > [ 22.956831] NFS4: Couldn't follow remote path
> >
> > Which accepts the "vers=4.2" parameter as there's no check that that
> > is
> > actually valid given the configuration, but then fails
> > later. Secondly, it
> > does this:
> >
> > > [ 22.971001] NFSOP 'source=192.168.1.10:/srv/nfs/odroidhc1'
> > > [ 22.975217] NFSOP 'nolock=(null)'
> > > [ 22.978444] NFSOP 'vers=4'
> > > [ 22.981265] NFSOP 'minorversion=1'
> > > [ 22.984513] NFS: Value for 'minorversion' out of range
> > > mount.nfs4: Numerical result out of range
> >
> > which fails because of the minorversion=1 specification, where the
> > kernel
> > config didn't enable NFS_V4_1.
> >
> > It looks like it ought to have failed prior to these patches in the
> > same way:
> >
> > case Opt_minorversion:
> > if (nfs_get_option_ul(args, &option))
> > goto out_invalid_value;
> > if (option > NFS4_MAX_MINOR_VERSION)
> > goto out_invalid_value;
> > mnt->minorversion = option;
> > break;
> >
>
> It looks like someone changed the return value from the old EINVAL to
> something else? The "Numerical result out of range" message above
> suggests it has been changed to EOVERFLOW, which probably is not
> supported by 'mount'.
It's returning ERANGE... and nope, mount.nfs doesn't support it (see
nfs_autonegotiate() in utils/mount/stropts.c). Changing it to return
EINVAL fixes it:
diff --git a/fs/nfs/fs_context.c b/fs/nfs/fs_context.c
index 429315c011ae..74508ed9aeec 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/fs_context.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/fs_context.c
@@ -769,8 +769,7 @@ static int nfs_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc,
out_invalid_address:
return nfs_invalf(fc, "NFS: Bad IP address specified");
out_of_bounds:
- nfs_invalf(fc, "NFS: Value for '%s' out of range", param->key);
- return -ERANGE;
+ return nfs_invalf(fc, "NFS: Value for '%s' out of range", param->key);
}
/*
I think I may have been running a hacked up version of mount.nfs
before... because as soon as I updated my nfs-utils package it stopped
working for me too.
-Scott
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-17 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-16 11:33 [BISECT BUG] NFS v4 root not working after 6d972518b821 ("NFS: Add fs_context support.") Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-01-17 0:49 ` Scott Mayhew
2020-01-17 11:53 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-01-17 12:54 ` David Howells
2020-01-17 13:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-01-17 14:08 ` David Howells
2020-01-17 14:36 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-01-17 14:20 ` David Howells
2020-01-17 14:40 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-01-17 15:12 ` David Howells
2020-01-17 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-01-17 15:32 ` Scott Mayhew [this message]
2020-01-17 15:44 ` David Howells
2020-01-17 15:48 ` [PATCH] nfs: Return EINVAL rather than ERANGE for mount parse errors David Howells
2020-01-17 15:55 ` [PATCH v2] " David Howells
2020-01-17 16:51 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-01-17 17:18 ` David Howells
2020-01-17 20:21 ` Schumaker, Anna
2020-01-17 21:12 ` David Howells
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=20200117153208.GB3111@aion.usersys.redhat.com \
--to=smayhew@redhat.com \
--cc=anna.schumaker@netapp.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox