Bug 500153
| Summary: | Bad lock managment between CIFS and NFSv4 (kernel) access | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Meflah Abdelkader <meflah_kader> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Jeff Layton <jlayton> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 9 | CC: | covex, itamar, jlayton, jonstanley, kernel-maint, quintela, steved |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | i386 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-06-08 11:04:18 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: | |||
Did you really meant to report this agains Fedora Hosted project and Deployment Guide documentation? Moving to Fedora/Kernel Correcting version based on information in bugreport. Sorry for the noise What kernel are you testing this on? F9 is pretty old at this point, do newer kernels fare better here? Yes, the new kernel fares better Good to hear, sounds like we can probably just close this as being already fixed upstream. For the record, what kernel did you test? I tested the kernel 2.6.28.11 Thank you Thanks for the info. Should be fixed in F11 then. |
Description of problem: client1 CIFS: lock SHARED range:16384-40959 client2 NFSV4: all lock SHARED succeed for any range and then unlock but lock EXCLUSIVE range 8192-24575 succeeds instead of failure Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora release 9 How reproducible: I use a specific test with two clients (CIFS-NFS(via nfsv4 mount point)) Steps to Reproduce: 1. CIFS SHARED lock range:16384-40959 2. NFS (via v4 mount point): EXCLUSIVE lock range:8192-24575 3. Actual results: Second lock succeeds Expected results: Failure Additional info: 1/ The is no NFSv4 lock operation conveyed via network traces 2/ The issue doesn't exist in Redhat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.1 (Tikanga) 3/ Here is the complete trace of client test Client:1 Server:SX0305KA User:......................... UNICODE Negotiation SUCCEEDED Client:1 Share:\\SX0305KA\SVR5LOCKNO! ................ Tree connect (Tid:0x003F): SUCCESS Client:1 File:\\SX0305KA\SVR5LOCKNO\toto_25674\lockfile! openX Access_mode:RW Share:DENY_NONE SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS open SUCCESS Client:1 File:\\SX0305KA\SVR5LOCKNO\toto_25674\lockfile! lockX SHARED range:0x4000-0x9fff : SUCCESS Client:1 INFO :! Segment 7 (range:16384-40959)! is locked for Shared access Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 0-8191 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 0-8191 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 0-16383 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 0-16383 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 8192-24575 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 8192-24575 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 16384-24575 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 16384-24575 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 24576-32767 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 24576-32767 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 32768-40959 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 32768-40959 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 16384-40959 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 16384-40959 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 8192-49151 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 8192-49151 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 32768-49151 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 32768-49151 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 40960-57343 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 40960-57343 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock SHARED range: 49152-57343 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 49152-57343 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock EXCLUSIVE range: 0-8191 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 0-8191 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock EXCLUSIVE range: 0-16383 : SUCCESS Client:2 File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile! NFS lock UNLOCK range: 0-16383 : SUCCESS Client:2 ERROR:? File /tmp/KADER/nolock/toto_25674/lockfile? NFS lock EXCLUSIVE range: 8192-24575 : SUCCESS instead of "Resource temporarily unavailable"