Greetings,
> Subject: Re: unable to mount nfs4 mount
>
> On Tue, Dec 27 2016, daggs wrote:
>
> > Greetings Neil,
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 26 2016, daggs wrote:
> >>
> >> > Greetings,
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Dec 26 2016, daggs wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can you strace mountd while you attempt a mount?
> >> >> >> e.g.
> >> >> >> strace -o /tmp/trace -s 1000 -p 241
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> and send the /tmp/trace.
> >> >> >> Also, after the attempt fails, run
> >> >> >> rpcdebug -m rpc -s cache
> >> >> >> grep . /proc/net/rpc/*/c*
> >> >> >> cat /proc/fs/nfsd/exports
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> and report the output.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > here:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > # cat /tmp/trace
> >> >> > pselect6(1024, [3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12], NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) = 1 (in [3])
> >> >> > read(3, "nfsd 10.0.0.1\n", 32768) = 14
> >> >> > openat(AT_FDCWD, "/run/nfs/etab", O_RDONLY) = 14
> >> >> > fstat(14, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=435, ...}) = 0
> >> >> > close(14) = 0
> >> >> > write(3, "nfsd 10.0.0.1 2079 10.0.0.0/24 \n", 32) = 32
> >> >>
> >> >> This is weird.
> >> >> Here mountd is telling nfsd that when a request comes from IP address
> >> >> 10.0.0.1, it should look for export entries associated with the client
> >> >> name "10.0.0.0/24", which is good.
> >> >> However the expiry time for that information is "2079", which is back in
> >> >> January 1970.
> >> >> When mountd writes that number, it computes it as
> >> >> time(0) + DEFAULT_TTL
> >> >> where DEFAULT_TTL is (30 * 60)
> >> >> Which suggests time(0) is "279".
> >> >>
> >> >> What is the current time on this system?
> >> >>
> >> >> If it really was very early on Jan 1st 1970, it should work, however...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > pselect6(1024, [3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12], NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL <detached ...>
> >> >> > # rpcdebug -m rpc -s cache
> >> >> > rpc cache
> >> >> > # grep . /proc/net/rpc/*/c*
> >> >> > /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.gid/content:#uid cnt: gids...
> >> >> > /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.ip/channel:nfsd 10.0.0.1
> >> >> > /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.ip/channel:nfsd 10.0.0.1
> >> >> > /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.ip/content:#class IP domain
> >> >> > /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.ip/content:# expiry=2079 refcnt=1 flags=1
> >> >> > /proc/net/rpc/auth.unix.ip/content:# nfsd 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.0/24
> >> >>
> >> >> ...the fact that this line is commented out indicates that the entry in
> >> >> the cache is already expired. So the time must be after 2079.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe the time is getting set from the network at an awkward time that
> >> >> races with NFS service some how.
> >> >> Can you find a way to run "exportfs -f" after the time has been set
> >> >> correctly?
> >> >>
> >> >> NeilBrown
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > wait, I think I've seen this somewhere, does this feature needs rtc? this board doesn't have rtc component.
> >> > for example, I cannot use openssh as ssh server because it needs rtc. I have to use dropbear.
> >> > if so, this looks like it will affect nfsv3 mounts, am I right?
> >>
> >> No, you shouldn't need an RTC.
> >> You need the synchronize the clock with ntp or similar, else time stamps
> >> on files will look wrong.
> >> Though I think we fixed issues with wall-clock-time jumping in 2.6.37...
> >>
> >> If you could try using "exportfs -f", and explain what does happen with
> >> time - do you use ntp ?? - we might be able to make progress.
> >
> > I'll build ntp into the image and try. does this affects nfsv3 too?
>
> Having correct time is quite important for any version of NFS. With out
> it, time stamps on files get confused. "make" doesn't cope at all,
> "tar" often complains, other tools might experience other problems.
>
> I still cannot quite see why having an incorrect clock would cause the
> particular symptoms you are experiencing, but it is worth fixing anyway.
I worked around the issue by setting the date manually. the issue still presists.
>
> >
> > what should I do with the "exportfs -f"? jsut run it and retry?
>
> Yes.
exportfs -f didn't made any difference.
Thanks,
Dagg.
--
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
