From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40DF237FF79; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 10:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772620134; cv=none; b=sOSnTR26aJxDKyo3Llf34JulPrHopuJtSEhAsl396TXltugdZ4PKr2JcYqgkv05pIGeva/spuHxd1RM8MeVzw86t7T67wwgcymG4scvlb4Xk0nlRxiWwCPwsdSdS0IqAMOUp1ZCmRX6/iqtHUNLevuUGAuazkCH5NT7X7bMfwUk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772620134; c=relaxed/simple; bh=d4bNtrNjDih07VzPz9I8qEt+Qp9zR9VO2epfFefT+lo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IAApl2IjA27xo8uY8qHnyWBwFEBLOUbZGLOYxBKyenJDM977COpeROkq/dRMgPfINLGKno/G9GZfLjjUvB/zcvFh9iPDIgjjCDZyPwX4y1riOQui72Dn3Uz8Z3/pDpGQRFrvB2hzYbsjuk9iXapmW8lGXgwaFfYjBwY3/uMJHRg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=g9dMXaMz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="g9dMXaMz" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=SNgwkX+bdpfdCJLmm7Ie55CAyRvvJujoCIUdEwsAyDY=; b=g9dMXaMznW8gQ4qICcT2K2H09Q mqFyFr6LItWW8Qv15k/hBtWnIFd4u9xF63T41ugmehACeavXx+206h3+/x2bwVdISX9QqhAy7iqGr uBIXfHMgdxFsFr66VaQCGUyNvgjyeGHtIdzdaej/i1d1S+tBB4WqBX/rm/54ObD2al991GitPYu8m Nii0XOmjbD6x4iBAoXM4BX8BOZYoljQtJnRDob711E2f7kdF071pd4LCS2wu9x975YGLa1NuAVZyC hXGsmuHK4sxUnCM79ke35Qn0elUz36LFO+01t6guG17LFEWGqannhE6PR7q3xHOfwM5fZPgJZuQm3 rPi8vE1A==; Received: from authenticated user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vxjT1-00FtEt-Gm; Wed, 04 Mar 2026 10:28:35 +0000 Received: by eldamar.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3E297BE2DE0; Wed, 04 Mar 2026 11:28:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 11:28:34 +0100 From: Salvatore Bonaccorso To: Thorsten Leemhuis , 1128861@bugs.debian.org Cc: Tj , Neil Brown , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Olga Kornievskaia , stable@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever , Jeff Layton Subject: Re: Bug#1128861: Regression: Missing check in nfsd_permission() causes -ENOLCK No locks available Message-ID: References: <177187492815.425331.14320091315652332093.reportbug@nimble> <418f30b5-06ae-471f-bf5f-f14f3f75deff@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <418f30b5-06ae-471f-bf5f-f14f3f75deff@leemhuis.info> X-Debian-User: carnil Control: found -1 6.19.5-1~exp1 Hi, On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 10:54:13AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > [CCing a few people and lists] > > On 2/24/26 03:09, Tj wrote: > > Upstream commit 4cc9b9f2bf4dfe13fe573 "nfsd: refine and rename > > NFSD_MAY_LOCK" and > >  stable v6.12.54 commit 18744bc56b0ec > > In case anyone just like me is wondering: the latter is a backport of > the former. > > >  (re)moves checks from fs/nfsd/vfs.c::nfsd_permission().>  This causes NFS clients to see > > > > $ flock -e -w 4 /srv/NAS/test/debian-13.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso sleep 1 > > flock: /srv/NAS/test/debian-13.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso: No locks available > > Does this happen on mainline (e.g. 7.0-rc1) as well? Not tested 7.0-rc2, but the issue is reproducible still in 6.19.5. Regards, Salvatore