Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:57:05 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de> To: Linux NFS mailing list <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [NFS] Incompatible: FreeBSD 4.2 client, Linux 2.2.18 nfsv3 server, ReiserFS Message-ID: <20010122105705.A2957@emma1.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <14955.56652.919230.41950@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au>; from neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 18:12:12 %2B1100 References: <20010120234024.A1771@emma1.emma.line.org> <14955.56652.919230.41950@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Neil Brown wrote: > On Saturday January 20, matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de wrote: > Beware of error messages reported by tcpdump... they are misleading. > The error code in the tcp packet is an "NFS error code" which should > not be confused with an "Unix-errno" error code, though there are > sometimes similarities. > tcpdump seems to assume that nfs error codes *are* unix error codes. > So you can believe the "116" but not the "read-only file system". Euhm, mount as well as ls return this error response as well. > Interestingly, nfs does not have an error "116", so it looks like the > NFS server is leaking unix errno codes into the protocol. > The Linux error code "116" is "Stale NFS file handle" (expect for > Sparc Linux, there it is "Interrupted syscall should be restarted"). May be, but a stale NFS file handle error on a freshly mounted file system (in response to mount possibly) is no better than a completely bogus error. > However I'm having trouble guessing why it would affect FreeBSD clients, > but not Solaris or Linux clients. And why v2 is fine with FreeBSD. -- Matthias Andree To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010122105705.A2957>