From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:19:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:19:05 -0500 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:5133 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:18:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200203110018.BAA11921@webserver.ithnet.com> From: Stephan von Krawczynski Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 01:18:48 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: BUG REPORT: kernel nfs between 2.4.19-pre2 (server) and 2.2.21-pre3 (client) To: Trond Myklebust User-Agent: IMHO/0.97.1 (Webmail for Roxen) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >>>>> " " == Stephan von Krawczynski writes: > > > Hello all, I just upgraded a host from 2.2.19 to 2.2.21-pre3 > > and discovered a problem with kernel nfs. Setup is this: > > > knfs-server is 2.4.19-pre2 knfs-client is 2.2.21-pre3 > > > First mount some fs (mountpoint /backup). Then go and mount > > some other fs from the same server (mountpoint /mnt), do some > > i/o on the latter and umount it again. Now try to access > > /backup. You see: > > 1) /backup (as a fs) vanished, you get a stale nfs handle. > > 2) umount /backup; mount /backup does not work. client tells > > "permission denied". server tells "rpc.mountd: getfh failed: > > Operation not permitted" > > By 'some fs' do you mean ext2? > > Not all filesystems work well with knfsd when things start to drop out > of the (d|i)caches. In particular things like /backup == VFAT might > give the above behaviour, since VFAT does not know how to map the NFS > file handles into on-disk inodes. Sorry Trond, this is a weak try of an explanation. All involved fs types are reiserfs. The problem occurs reproducably only after (and including) 2.2.20 and above and _not_ in 2.2.19. There must be some problem. Though I do not know whether the problem is on the client side, or simply produced by this client side and effectively located on 2.4.18 server, I really can't tell. But giving me something to try might clear the picture. Any hints? Stephan