Bug 196028

Summary: shell tests do not always work properly on automounted directories
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Reporter: Tim Kelley <tim.kelley>
Component: kernelAssignee: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3.0CC: ikent, petrides
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-07-05 21:06:19 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Tim Kelley 2006-06-20 14:32:54 UTC
Description of problem:      
run-parts fails (very often) on autofs controlled directories      
      
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):      
4.1.3-154  
      
How reproducible:      
90%      
      
Steps to Reproduce:      
1. add autofs controlled directory to /etc/crontab      
  e.g.    
"01 * * * * root run-parts /usr/local/etc/cron.hourly"    
    
2. Let it go for a while and watch run-parts fail.  the [! -d $1 ] test 
in /usr/bin/run-parts does not always succeed.  It seems to succeed 100% in 
the shell interactively.  It is very inconsistent. 
      
        
Actual results:      
    
run-parts fails; the test to see if $1 is a directory fails, where $1 is an 
automounted directory. 
      
Expected results:      
    
run-parts would work    
      
Additional info:      
autofs options are --ghost and --timeout=60. this sort of thing seems to fail   
only when run from cron.  Just doing "test -d /foo/bar" interactively seems to   
work all the time (where bar is automounted).

Comment 1 Jeff Moyer 2006-06-20 15:23:19 UTC
I can't reproduce this problem.  Can you at least try U7 kernel and autofs
packges?  There have been fixes to expire/mount races when ghosting is involved,
so perhaps you are running into that.

Thanks.

Comment 2 Tim Kelley 2006-06-20 16:36:27 UTC
will try this as soon as possible ... can you keep the bug open for a while?  
This problem is very inconsistent ...

Comment 3 Tim Kelley 2006-06-20 16:37:15 UTC
will try this as soon as possible ... can you keep the bug open for a while?  
This problem is very inconsistent ...

Comment 4 Jeff Moyer 2006-06-20 16:51:19 UTC
Yes, of course.  But I am still awaiting information from you, so I've changed
the state appropriately.

Comment 5 Tim Kelley 2006-07-05 21:02:08 UTC
Jeffrey, 
 
Updating seems to have resolved the problem, thanks. 

Comment 6 Jeff Moyer 2006-07-05 21:06:19 UTC
Great!

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 142856 ***