Dear Jeff, dear Chuck, dear Thorsten,
Thank you for your responses, and sorry for not replying earlier.
Am 29.05.24 um 15:13 schrieb Jeff Layton:
On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 16:09 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
On May 24, 2024, at 7:16 AM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
On 21.05.24 12:01, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 11:55 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
Am 19.04.24 um 18:50 schrieb Paul Menzel:
Since at least Linux 6.8-rc6, Linux logs the warning below:
NFSD: Unable to initialize client recovery tracking! (-110)
I haven’t had time to bisect yet, so if you have an idea,
that’d be great.
74fd48739d0488e39ae18b0168720f449a06690c is the first bad commit
commit 74fd48739d0488e39ae18b0168720f449a06690c
Author: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Oct 13 09:03:53 2023 -0400
nfsd: new Kconfig option for legacy client tracking
We've had a number of attempts at different NFSv4 client tracking
methods over the years, but now nfsdcld has emerged as the clear winner
since the others (recoverydir and the usermodehelper upcall) are
problematic.
[...]
It sounds like you need to enable nfsdcld in your environment. The old
recovery tracking methods are deprecated. The only surviving one
requires the nfsdcld daemon to be running when recovery tracking is
started. Alternately, you can enable this option in your kernels if you
want to keep using the deprecated methods in the interim.
Hmm. Then why didn't this new config option default to "Y" for a while
(say a year or two) before changing the default to off? That would have
prevented people like Paul from running into the problem when running
"olddefconfig". I think that is what Linus would have wanted in a case
like this, but might be totally wrong there (I CCed him, in case he
wants to share his opinion, but maybe he does not care much).
That's fair. I recall we believed at the time that very few people
if anyone currently use a legacy recovery tracking mechanism, and
the workaround, if they do, is easy.
But I guess that's too late now, unless we want to meddle with config
option names. But I guess that might not be worth it after half a year
for something that only causes a warning (aiui).
In Paul's case, the default behavior might prevent proper NFSv4
state recovery, which is a little more hazardous than a mere
warning, IIUC.
To my surprise, it often takes quite some time for changes like
this to matriculate into mainstream usage, so half a year isn't
that long. We might want to change to a more traditional
deprecation path (default Y with warning, wait, default N, wait,
redact the old code).
I've no objection if you want to do that.
I'm more concerned about Paul's setup though. Paul, what distro are you
running that starts nfsd (and presumably, mountd, etc.), but doesn't
bother starting nfsdcld?
Reenabling this for now is an OK workaround, but we need to understand
where these setups are coming from, and probably do some sort of
outreach to get them working properly.
Thank you for the explanation. Due to historical reasons we maintain our
own distribution MarIuX64 [1] and currently run Linux 5.15.x and 6.6.x.
Installing nfsdcld is no problem, but it would have been nice to make
this clearer in the error message, so people without being NFSD experts
getting this message, knew what to do right away. Maybe:
NFSD: Unable to initialize client recovery tracking! (-110) Is nfsdcld
running? Otherwise enable NFSD_LEGACY_CLIENT_TRACKING.
Kind regards,
Paul
[1]: https://github.molgen.mpg.de/mariux64/bee-files/
[2]: https://github.molgen.mpg.de/mariux64/bee-files/pull/3111
