On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:02:40PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > But looking closer at it it only prints the directory name and not that > of any of the matching cookies, making it pretty useless to debug any > problem. (and it makes my previous question to Justin look stupid..). > > > But so far I still stick to my previous theory that this sounds like > a directory offset getting reused. How is cache invalidation for > the array supposed to work? And maybe more importantly, given that he > can only reproduce it with a .38 client did any bugs get fixed in that > code recently that might lead to issues with the cache invalidation? Actually we won't even need cache invalidation bugs, see nfsd_buffered_readdir() - we might do multiple vfs_readdir calls to fill a single nfs reply, and between these two directory contents might have been completely replaced, in the worst (pathological case) you might get a second readdir having exactly the same offsets, but pointing to completely different inodes. -- 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
