RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 2107752 - autofs: send FAIL cmd/ioctl mess when encountering problems with mount trigger [rhel-7.9.z]
Summary: autofs: send FAIL cmd/ioctl mess when encountering problems with mount trigge...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: autofs
Version: 7.9
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Ian Kent
QA Contact: Kun Wang
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-07-15 20:55 UTC by Thiago Rafael Becker
Modified: 2023-03-07 09:57 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: autofs-5.0.7-116.el7_9.1
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-03-07 09:54:45 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHELPLAN-127932 0 None None None 2022-07-15 20:56:07 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2023:1096 0 None None None 2023-03-07 09:54:47 UTC

Description Thiago Rafael Becker 2022-07-15 20:55:17 UTC 
Description of problem:
Customer is having issues similar to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023740 on RHEL7.

Jul 13 08:37:30 vc-l-p03606 automount[1772]: do_mount_indirect: indirect trigger not valid or already mounted /home/c7577029
Jul 13 08:37:30 vc-l-p03606 automount[1772]: dev_ioctl_send_fail:499: AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_FAIL: error Invalid argument
Jul 13 08:37:30 vc-l-p03606 automount[1772]: do_mount_indirect: indirect trigger not valid or already mounted /home/c7577029
Jul 13 08:37:30 vc-l-p03606 automount[1772]: dev_ioctl_send_fail:499: AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_FAIL: error Invalid argument

Which are filling the logs.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
autofs-5.0.7-116.el7_9

How reproducible:
Unknown

Steps to Reproduce:
See original bug

Actual results:
autofs messages indicating this error are filling the logs.

Expected results:
No failures

Additional info:
Opening the bug to report the issue is happening in RHEL7 on a customer, and checking with engineering if they find feasible to backport the fix to RHEL7.
Comment 8 Dave Wysochanski 2022-11-07 10:07:43 UTC 
So far I don't think the business case is there to justify a larger patch backport to RHEL7.  If nothing changes, given what we have, I'm inclined to close this WONTFIX.

Support team, a few questions to answer:
1. Is it feasible for customer to upgrade to RHEL8 to avoid this bug?
* NOTE that any bug encountered on RHEL7 will have a similar problem with getting fixed as the bar is higher for any fix to go to RHEL7

2. Is there any workaround for the customer?
* NOTE: There is only one customer case on the RHEL8 bug, and one customer case here.  So it's likely there's some contributing factor that is causing such issue to be hit repeatedly in the customer environment, and so if that can be identified then the customer can probably avoid this issue.
Comment 9 Ian Kent 2022-11-08 02:37:22 UTC 
(In reply to Dave Wysochanski from comment #8)
> So far I don't think the business case is there to justify a larger patch
> backport to RHEL7.  If nothing changes, given what we have, I'm inclined to
> close this WONTFIX.

While the patch is a bit larger than we would normally allow it is
fairly straight forward and has had quite a bit of soak time.

OTOH I haven't looked to see if it would pull in dependent patches.

> 
> Support team, a few questions to answer:
> 1. Is it feasible for customer to upgrade to RHEL8 to avoid this bug?
> * NOTE that any bug encountered on RHEL7 will have a similar problem with
> getting fixed as the bar is higher for any fix to go to RHEL7
> 
> 2. Is there any workaround for the customer?
> * NOTE: There is only one customer case on the RHEL8 bug, and one customer
> case here.  So it's likely there's some contributing factor that is causing
> such issue to be hit repeatedly in the customer environment, and so if that
> can be identified then the customer can probably avoid this issue.

There isn't a workaround unfortunately.

The log messages should mostly only appear if the customer is using
direct mount maps.

They might also appear for sub-mounts (it will take a bit more to work
out if that is actually the case). If the customer is using amd maps
with autofs they do make heavy use of sub-mounts.

So we would also want to know what usage is causing the logs to fill up.

AFAICS the log messages are error messages so they will be logged which
is fairly annoying.

So if we can verify the customer usage could be filling the logs we
should apply this change (assuming there aren't dependent patches
that make the change too large).

Ian
Comment 23 errata-xmlrpc 2023-03-07 09:54:45 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (autofs bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2023:1096
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.