xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: panic on 4.20 server exporting xfs filesystem

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: panic on 4.20 server exporting xfs filesystem
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:21:17 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150305131901.GB16235@xxxxxx>
References: <20150303221033.GB19439@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150303224456.GV4251@dastard> <20150304020826.GD19439@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150304044141.GQ18360@dastard> <20150305131901.GB16235@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:19:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > As I understand it, nothing will prevent this - if you don't change
> > the UUID on the filesystem when you clone it, then the UUID will
> > still match and writes can be directed to any block deice with a
> > matching offset/UUID pair.
> 
> Unfortunately that's the case indeed.  The whole discovery part of
> the block layout protocol is fundamentally flawed, as is the recall
> part.  This is my attempt to fix it, but I have no idea how to proceed
> from posting my draft to the IETF to actually making it a standard:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hellwig-nfsv4-scsi-layout-00

Keep asking, I guess.

I'll try to give it a review too.

May be another reason we can't keep it on by default, if it all it takes
is some confusion with snapshots and something disastrous happens on
upgrade to a block pnfs-supporting kernel.

Though maybe that's really a client bug, as it should probably be
getting an OK from someone before using a device.  Arguably the
"systemctl start nfs-blkmap" or equivalent is that, but something more
explicit might be better.

--b.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>