Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Return -ESTALE to force lookup for missing NFS file handles
There seems to be a annoying problem using NFSv4 to access ZFS file systems under certain circumstances. It's easily reproduced: nfs_client1: mount server:/export /mnt nfs_client1: cd /mnt nfs_client1: echo foo >junk nfs_client1: cat junk foo Now on a different NFSv4 client: nfs_client2: mount server:/export /mnt nfs_client2: cd /mnt nfs_client2: vi junk # Make some changes to /mnt/junk and save # This change the inode associated with /mnt/junk Now back to the original client: nfs_client1: cat junk cat: junk: No such file or directory Admittedly NFSv4 is not advertised as a cluster file system that maintains a completely coherent view of data across multiple nodes. But it does have some mechanisms built in that try to deal with situations like the above. Namely, it employs specialized file handle lookup routines that return ESTALE when a file handle contains a non-existant inode value. The ESTALE return triggers a return full file path lookup from the client to determine if the file has actually gone away or if the cached file handle is no longer valid. ZFS behavior can be brought into line with other file systems (e.g., ext4) by applying the following patch: Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Closes #3224
- Loading branch information
79065ed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The error has changed, after applying the patch. When editing the file on host A and making it shorter (deleting lines). I get
ls: cannot access filexx: File exists
on host B. When making the file bigger (adding lines) all is fine.
79065ed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tom71 yes, after I committed this I started having some second thoughts because we're now effectively always masking the ENOENT case. This is going to require some more careful testing.