Bug 11229 - nfsd, v4: oops in find_acceptable_alias, ppc32 Linux, post-2.6.27-rc1
nfsd, v4: oops in find_acceptable_alias, ppc32 Linux, post-2.6.27-rc1
Status: REJECTED INVALID
Product: File System
Classification: Unclassified
Component: NFS
All Linux
: P1 normal
Assigned To: bfields
:
Depends on:
Blocks: 10492
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-08-02 10:12 UTC by Rafael J. Wysocki
Modified: 2009-03-23 09:52 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Kernel Version: 2.6.27-rc1
Tree: Mainline
Regression: Yes


Attachments

Description Rafael J. Wysocki 2008-08-02 10:12:20 UTC
Subject    : nfsd, v4: oops in find_acceptable_alias, ppc32 Linux, post-2.6.27-rc1
Submitter  : Paul Collins <paul@burly.ondioline.org>
Date       : 2008-08-02 12:03
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121767906702209&w=4

This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.26.  Please don't
close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
Comment 1 Rafael J. Wysocki 2008-08-02 12:04:08 UTC
Handled-By : "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Comment 2 Rafael J. Wysocki 2008-08-03 05:33:48 UTC
On Sunday, 3 of August 2008, Paul Collins wrote:
> Paul Collins <paul@burly.ondioline.org> writes:
> 
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 12:03:18AM +1200, Paul Collins wrote:
> >>> I just got the oops below on a ppc32 NFS4 server.  I was cross-compiling
> >>> Linux with an amd64 client at the time.  The server is running Linus's
> >>> tree as of 94ad374a0751f40d25e22e036c37f7263569d24c, the client is
> >>> running 2.6.26.
> >>> 
> >>> The server's kernel was cross-compiled with gcc 4.2.4-3 and binutils
> >>> 2.18.50.20080610-1, both built from the Debian sources following their
> >>> toolchain-building procedures.
> >>
> >> Without having really thought about this,
> >>
> >> 	496d6c32d4d057cb44272d9bd587ff97d023ee92 "nfsd: fix spurious
> >> 	EACCESS in reconnect_path()"
> >>
> >> is one suspect; it might be worth checking whether the problem's
> >> reproduceable with that reverted.  But I assume we're not so lucky as to
> >> have a 100% reproduceable problem here?
> >
> > Unknown.  I've kicked off a fresh build.  Here's hoping!
> 
> I can trigger it reliably with a 2.6.26 client.  I've also triggered it
> with 496d6c32d4d057cb44272d9bd587ff97d023ee92 reverted on the server.
> 
> It's harder to trigger with 2.6.27-rc1+ but I managed to get an Oops
> on the fourth build after three successful builds on the NFS4 mount.

Comment 3 Rafael J. Wysocki 2008-08-03 05:35:17 UTC
Not a regression from 2.6.26, apparently.
Comment 4 bfields 2008-09-24 15:24:21 UTC
Following the rest of that thread (e.g. http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfsv4&m=121800494506042&w=4) it appears this was an ftrace bug?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.