Hi,
I genuinly tried to look for anything on this issue, so I apologize in advance if it was covered before.
Anyway, I've seen something like this while trying to mount a share (which is authorized to a set of specific IP):
1) One mount from one host succeeds.
2) Other mounts fail with stale fh error.
Kernel is 3.2.
Log contains something like:
Jan 25 18:03:44 localhost rpc.mountd[6844]: nfsd_fh: inbuf '10.150.27.241 6 \x150ad1f8b9824ea5a1bfafa56e92fa0b'
Jan 25 18:03:44 localhost rpc.mountd[6844]: /exports and /exports/abracadabra have same filehandle for 10.150.27.241, using first
Jan 25 18:03:44 localhost rpc.mountd[6844]: qword_eol: fflush failed: errno 22 (Invalid argument)
Jan 25 18:03:44 localhost rpc.mountd[6844]: Cannot export /exports, possibly unsupported filesystem or fsid= required
...where /exports/abracadabra is the actual export, and /exports is this pseudoexport for NFSv4.
Granted, my nfs-utils is old (1.2.3). I've looked at the latest tarball, 1.2.5, yet I don't think
this would still help me out very much, as subexport checks for NFSEXP_CROSSMOUNT, which is not set.
(/exports/abracadabra 10.150.27.220(rw,no_root_squash,sync,no_wdelay,no_subtree_check,uuid=b5ffa269:e068456b:9d95fb6a:f2a8f431)
cache.c: static void nfsd_fh(FILE *f) {
...
if (!found || subexport(&exp->m_export, found)) {
found = &exp->m_export;
free(found_path);
found_path = strdup(path);
if (found_path == NULL)
goto out;
} else if (strcmp(found->e_path, exp->m_export.e_path)
&& !subexport(found, &exp->m_export))
xlog(L_WARNING, "%s and %s have same filehandle for %s using fi\
rst",
found_path, path, dom);
}
...
}
Is my thinking wrong? Wouldn't it still pick up (in error) /exports? Does this mean that mountd needs to know if the nfsd.fh request
was for a NFSv3 or NFSv4 mount?
A
--
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
