On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:29:09PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 14:48 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30:25AM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:36:52PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > The first patch addresses the Oops. > > > > The second will hopefully address the looping. > > > > > > > > Trond Myklebust (2): > > > > NFSv4: Ensure that the LOCK code sets exception->inode > > > > NFSv4: Ensure that we check lock exclusive/shared type against open > > > > modes > > > > > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 1.7.7.6 > > > > > > > Just to let you know we do have a few successful tests on these patches. > > > You can check the details here: > > > > > > http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/974664 > > > > > > Although I haven't tested the patches myself, fell free to add a Tested-by > > > to these patches. > > > > There's something else a forgot to mention, which is the fact that the bug > > reports were for kernel 3.2.14. So you may want to update the > > "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" on commit 487790f27df9bb27d3400486bd021dd59edc7589 > > to include at least this version. > > Yep. I also saw that there is a need for it in 3.0.27, so I'll just > remove that >= 3.3.1... Great, thanks. > > There are two another patches we have applied that are present in mainline > > but haven't made its way into stable: > > - 14977489ffdb80d4caf5a184ba41b23b02fbacd9 > > - 96dcadc2fdd111dca90d559f189a30c65394451a > > I don't plan on sending these 2 commits to stable unless we see some > specific problems that need to be corrected. I understand that seeing a > NFS4ERR_OPENMODE at the wrong time could theoretically cause an Oops > without the 1497748 commit, but broken servers can wreak all sorts of > havoc anyway. There isn't much you can do to protect against them. I'm afraid I can't follow you on the protocol-related details, but the bug report I referred above was caused by an Oops which could be avoided by improving the robustness of the code (which the first commit does by checking for a NULL). Also, I'm not sure the NFS server being used by the bug reporter would fit into the "broken servers" category, as it seems to be working OK. For all of this, I would be glad to see the first commit on stable. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help sorting this out. Cheers, -- Luis -- 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
