From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:45:43 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.0-test4-mm1: NFS+XFS=data corruption Message-Id: <20030825124543.413187a5.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20030825193717.GC3562@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <20030824171318.4acf1182.akpm@osdl.org> <20030825193717.GC3562@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Barry K. Nathan" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com List-ID: "Barry K. Nathan" wrote: > > I'm really short on time right now, so this bug report might be vague, > but it's important enough for me to try: > > I have an NFS fileserver (running 2.6.0-test4-mm1) exporting stuff from > three filesystems: ReiserFS, ext3, and XFS. I'm seeing no problems with > my ReiserFS and ext3 filesystems. XFS is a different story. > > My client machine is running 2.4.21bkn1 (my own kernel, not released to > the public; the differences from vanilla 2.4.21 are XFS and Win4Lin). > > If I use my client machine to sign RPM packages (rpm --addsign ...), > using rpm-4.2-16mdk, and the packages are on the XFS partition on the > NFS server, about half of the packages are truncated by a couple hundred > bytes afterwards (and GPG sig verification fails on those packages). > > It's always the same packages that get truncated by the same amounts of > data. This is 100% reproducible. It doesn't matter whether I compile the > kernel with gcc 2.95.3 or 3.1.1. If I perform the operation on my non-XFS > filesystem the problem doesn't happen. If I run 2.6.0-test4-bk2 instead of > test4-mm1 on the NFS server, the problem goes away. (I have never run > any previous -mm kernels on this server.) > > Hmmm... If I sign the packages on the NFS server itself, even with > test4-mm1 on the XFS partition, I can't reproduce the problem. > *However*, that's a different version of RPM (4.0.4). > > Is this enough information to help find the cause of the bug? If not, > it might be several days (if I'm unlucky, maybe even a week or two) > before I have time to do anything more... > -mm kernels have O_DIRECT-for-NFS patches in them. And some versions of RPM use O_DIRECT. Whether O_DIRECT makes any difference at the server end I do not know, but it would be useful if you could repeat the test on stock 2.6.0-test4. Alternatively, run export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 before running RPM. I think that should tell RPM to not try O_DIRECT. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org