From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Tue Mar 3 00:16:33 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 3D72225F7C7 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:16:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from CAN01-QB1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr660059.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.66.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "GlobalSign Organization Validation CA - SHA256 - G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48Wcxr0vZ7z49Z5; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:16:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=h/chOv5bYdOIq8g/JhiACg2tRXFQzJFYIDGuz13lspDxQepDymgEc4QEzyJNzcPj0vclOlkLZHXiN1UjPGedT+27/1U/1VTvz8jRsRg/rl+6tzojMG6cFuRTqfhz7RL8+Ns4tnd7PYt7TRhK3Oo3dHZEYrsxSTk6d7hVfr9+umAL3QPV2I3agodMChhJS1ovbjPnjvoY9e4VC4IT14wUznmHp1uJHGhtu4L1fPe7nmHJJvASK1QuyeKHiOxinyLRxvw7HGPxORhlULCCjp+Oex9R39k6b42CHcI52oi30rPk4Iga6sk5ju0f1AdY1x2bcV0uFxmTsZAnBX0L1pC8fQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=0sNMsKpfl7yZFLUYo/qNar0M3VEPekbXJLuBb26yUSk=; b=BEfOTQhkw/UutOJ1VJi2HSu1scowS5PbVeOleiVVcfUVE79VHoVV9s51VMYtN7W4RnluBEIEf+z3hroYjoGu/2DFTb4CmG6u1pTc+1RVMgVVf/VtC+CPop8o/bkqPuJOyni/ebpBfPYv919C8fKz3ueEugbojuOesMKh31EDhEmk5RAz4dnEAnTLK5l3OU5Gqcpdy7yRkspji8/YV+rpKe5DePYrRuoqUP2zwajugeoph7GIU0h7yHxh6WUWG3tBzQnIwv83+STvPIK93EZa+CSC3ZnVy1XAJjFR2fbYwntjNhBa/DcpCWU5KhmASNv/k2fWfKVKKnim54Vf0xKsJw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uoguelph.ca; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=uoguelph.ca; dkim=pass header.d=uoguelph.ca; arc=none Received: from YTBPR01MB3374.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.255.46.82) by YTBPR01MB2383.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.255.12.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2772.16; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:16:28 +0000 Received: from YTBPR01MB3374.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::a50d:6237:4074:f9c4]) by YTBPR01MB3374.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::a50d:6237:4074:f9c4%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2772.019; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:16:28 +0000 From: Rick Macklem To: Alan Somers , freebsd-fs Subject: Re: go build, flock, and NFS_BADSEQID Thread-Topic: go build, flock, and NFS_BADSEQID Thread-Index: AQHV8MkuyE39915G806DwUCLKbUVs6g14d4/gAADuQCAAAKSQoAAFOKAgAACXxg= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:16:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3782262d-28a3-4ff1-30ba-08d7bf081e66 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: YTBPR01MB2383: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:4714; x-forefront-prvs: 03319F6FEF x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(81156014)(71200400001)(110136005)(8936002)(81166006)(2906002)(53546011)(6506007)(8676002)(478600001)(7696005)(55016002)(66556008)(66946007)(64756008)(66446008)(33656002)(186003)(9686003)(66476007)(86362001)(786003)(450100002)(52536014)(316002)(76116006)(5660300002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:YTBPR01MB2383; H:YTBPR01MB3374.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: uoguelph.ca does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: I7rT2m1l9vEmaSicZXzcS+NHeS6jIr06p13wI3pLtTDRi1xZRBF5eK/xjPcKkH6+hwkaqxxvWguQHTJt36NumWeEkyNTRnjYGQkSl/m13AYupXH7Ae50yrhSva8rqxDPld1VnGggkfZWyM6ETm0Xv8mfjAXWTOTuTNVhep10xORRfqvd4DvaKg0RD9g1ko/Jf+jh0o8oX1L3FJs+cn/oG7KS/X1iOj7QD6hhryGEdyGt3R4qTWMul8i4RD+VwvVuolmBIqL9taUsnbphBuMOkE/x6IrMjVGQ5arw2M4DYl34NLcB0Ai+EutVj2lxKUntCgDUqNmmg1aHTIPmmZBXosCIXJHiBXADCu9As7pW3pPfWySxlAJorddc4MCRyk4qRd4/xUYzOwfztCm+OjMVDhkfvJTTNU4GHj4XmHQyTAkuXDPSi28EGlcCV51tC1ZN x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: fsJ9qvbN3iNUktXAwZjOLiYiuTKcCyoAj2xvT8u4igGTwN14h0fxU4+TLREt5XSOVAnjRPF2AFgf+C5+WvMXTbie+xxv2Yuf9ilJf2xpE+A4bQ1lNGNPXfU3eIJ5FWKTvD8IJJVY9n13rQofWJ/y0W+L8Vt8nrvjL3RDP5577uOWnFy5Qw+kVZJKlI2OGjGpwIOgDCz9WUyVexPudTEWYA== x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: uoguelph.ca X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3782262d-28a3-4ff1-30ba-08d7bf081e66 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Mar 2020 00:16:28.5162 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: be62a12b-2cad-49a1-a5fa-85f4f3156a7d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Du0b1NcNFwnQoQ6j0YwtRHBl9RWXF4JUrNZ6Vq54OYUyK7O5KbpXF+TiXMEeocIs4Qtj+09siWsJnPRozvtVBg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: YTBPR01MB2383 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48Wcxr0vZ7z49Z5 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.87 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.87)[-0.868,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:16:33 -0000 Good to hear. For some reason, the IETF NFSv4 working group does a lot of work trying to get NFSv4.0 right. >From my point of view, it is just a typical .0 release that was fixed by th= e .1 release. Linux always uses the newest version supported by the server by default. Maybe I could get away with doing the same for FreeBSD? (For NFSv4 minor versions, not NFSv4 instead of NFSv3, which I think would be a POLA violation.) What do you think? rick Thanks, rick ________________________________________ From: Alan Somers Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 7:04 PM To: Rick Macklem; freebsd-fs Subject: Re: go build, flock, and NFS_BADSEQID Yep. Remounting with minorversion=3D1 fixed the problem. Thanks!. On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM Rick Macklem > wrote: Oh and avoid "soft,intr" options on the mount. Those are pretty much guaranteed to result in a BADSEQID sooner or later. rick ps: It's in the Bugs section of "man mount_nfs", but nobody reads that far;= -) ________________________________________ From: Alan Somers > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 5:40 PM To: Rick Macklem Cc: freebsd-fs; Rick Macklem Subject: Re: go build, flock, and NFS_BADSEQID Is that a mount option? Because it seems like I can't set it with "mount -= u". Do I need to completely unmount first? On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:28 PM Rick Macklem >> wrote: Try "minorversion=3D1". The seqid stuff is NFSv4.0 specific and shouldn't be broken, but NFSv4.1 fixed all this in better ways. rick ________________________________________ From: alan somers >> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 2:31 PM To: freebsd-fs Cc: Rick Macklem Subject: go build, flock, and NFS_BADSEQID I'm trying to build a Go project with /usr/home mounted with NFSv4. The se= rver is running 12.0-RELEASE and the client is running 12.1-RELEASE. But t= he build reliably fails because flock(2) returns EACCES. Dtrace shows the = cause is nfsrpc_advlock returning NFS_BADSEQID. This sounds like an NFS bu= g (server, client, or both? I'm not sure). I'm not an NFS expert. Is thi= s something I should pursue, and would somebody please give me advise on ho= w to debug further? -Alan