On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 09:16:48PM -0800, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> 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
That sounds like a bug....
> 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.
Note we don't recommend that any more if you're using recent enough
kernel and nfs-utils. If you leave out the fsid=0 export and export
normally, your export will be visible to v4 clients under its real path
(the same path v2/v3 clients would see.)
> Granted, my nfs-utils is old (1.2.3). I've looked at the latest tarball, 1.2.5, yet I don't think
There are a few fixes in that general area since 1.2.3.
--b.
> 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?
--
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
