On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 08:59 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > I've found that the problem was backported into the stable stream since > > I cannot reproduce the issue with 2.6.26 but I can with 2.6.26.5. This > > is quite useful since there are only 3 relevant looking changesets in > > that range. I will bisect between these before confirming the culprit on > > mainline. Could you double-check that this is reproduceable with this commit applied, and not reproduceable when it's not? I suppose it's not impossible that this could be triggering the problem in some very roundabout way, but it seems a bit out of left field--so I wonder whether one of the bisection points could have gotten marked good when it should have been bad, or vice-versa. > It reports: > > daedfbe2a67628a40076a6c75fb945c60f608a2e is first bad commit > commit daedfbe2a67628a40076a6c75fb945c60f608a2e > Author: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed Jun 11 17:39:04 2008 -0400 > > NFS: Ensure we zap only the access and acl caches when setting new acls > > commit f41f741838480aeaa3a189cff6e210503cf9c42d upstream > > ...and ensure that we obey the NFS_INO_INVALID_ACL flag when retrieving the > acls. > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx> > > I'm just about to build f41f741838480aeaa3a189cff6e210503cf9c42d and the > one before and try those. > > I'm not using ACLs as far as I am aware. I think commands like "ls" try to get posix acls these days, so it's possible that the nfs3_proc_getacl code at least might be getting called. Why that would matter I can't see. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
