From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Sun Jul 19 13:44:45 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3970B35F4D9 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8mLj0pD4z4bd9 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 19B8735F4D8; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:45 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1981735F4D7 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B8mLh6vVCz4bp3 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07021C72E for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 06JDiiSl012271 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:44 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 06JDiiFW012270 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:44 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248105] Some zfs snapshots are busy within the ZCP domain but can still be destroyed from userland Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:44 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: bsdpr@phoe.frmug.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:44:45 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248105 Bug ID: 248105 Summary: Some zfs snapshots are busy within the ZCP domain but can still be destroyed from userland Product: Base System Version: 12.1-STABLE Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Only Me Priority: --- Component: kern Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: bsdpr@phoe.frmug.org On a host running 12-STABLE (rev 360207) I observe an inconsistent behavior from zfs when attempting to destroy snapshots. From a zfs channel program, a call to zfs.sync.destroy() fails and return EBUSY. That is extremely strang= e as the affected snapshot is not a clone source and can be destroyed without er= ror with the 'zfs destroy' command. I observed that the ZCP I'm using stopped functioning correctly due to this= bug after I accessed the contents of another (more recent) snapshot via the .zfs/snapshot facility. Snapshots created after accessing .zfs/snapshot are= not deemed busy while all snapshots created before the access are busy from the= ZCP domain. By accessing .zfs/snapshot I mean listing the contents of .zfs/snapshot, listing the contents of a given snapshot, and eventually cop= ying a file from that same snapshot. As a summary, please consider the following layout: pool/fs@snapA pool/fs@snapB pool/fs@snapC pool/fs@snapD on which the following actions are applied (with their outcome): zfs.sync.destroy("pool/fs@snapA") -- will succeed $ ls pool/fs/.zfs/snapC $ ls pool/fs/.zfs/snapC/ $ cp pool/fs/.zfs/snapC/file /tmp/discard zfs.sync.destroy("pool/fs@snapB") -- will fail $ zfs destroy pool/fs@snapB # will succeed $ zfs snapshot pool/fs@snapE zfs.sync.destroy("pool/fs@snapE") -- will succeed zfs.sync.destroy("pool/fs@snapD") -- will fail $ zfs destroy pool/fs@snapD # will succeed --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=