On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:10:37PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:29 +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:17:27PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 16:36 +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote: > > > > A little theorizing: > > > > If the unlock of a yet unrecovered lock has failed up to that point then > > > > the client sure must remember the lock somehow. That might explain the > > > > secondary error when a conflicting lock is granted by the server. > > > > > > Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. The client will release the VFS > > > 'mirror' of the lock before it attempts to unlock. Otherwise, you could > > > have some nasty races between the unlock thread and the recovery > > > thread... > > > Besides, the granted callback handler on the client only checks the list > > > of blocked locks for a match. > > > > ok, then we have more than one NLM bug to resolve. > > > > > > > > Oh, bugger, I know what this is... It's the same thing that happened to > > > the NFSv4 callback server. If you compile with CONFIG_IPV6 or > > > CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE enabled, and also set CONFIG_SUNRPC_REGISTER_V4, then > > > the NLM server will listen on an IPv6 socket, and so the RPC request > > > come in with their IPv4 address mapped into the IPv6 namespace. > > > > Nope: > > > > $ zgrep IPV6 /proc/config.gz > > # CONFIG_IPV6 is not set > > $ zgrep SUNRPC /proc/config.gz > > CONFIG_SUNRPC=y > > CONFIG_SUNRPC_GSS=y > > # CONFIG_SUNRPC_BIND34 is not set > > Sorry, yes... 2.6.27.x should be OK. The lockd v4mapped addresses bug is > specific to 2.6.29. Chuck, are you planning on fixing this before > 2.6.29-final comes out? > > > And remember this is not a recent regression. > > It would help if you sent us the full binary tcpdump, instead of just > the summary. That should enable us to figure out which of the tests is > failing in nlmclnt_grant(). I posted the link already. Anyway, see attachment. -- Frank
Attachment:
2.6.27.14-nlm-grace.pcap
Description: Binary data