From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Tue Mar 3 00:26:23 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 3EC2325FE85 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:26:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com (mail-ot1-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48Wd994hR7z4MND for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:26:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id j5so1244185otn.10 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:26:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZJbFM8l8+SmXojKbrMpAapCufAsncfLYy6Pbu1x/E/s=; b=c10OnyF3vXoXhcaRebeJk1GKT3WzEhf3YXr/Cw2DMHSjpxAsHw9qV2x5+nNPhV3eii euoFVhaY6J54wac6V5UEic0/M0vQ40Zk/MEU59liNnsENsYgetQWzg7zd+/jLjKfex4d o28L+Oz7l0pTRXfBl4v+A8GXlMXIBucXaC3ERTpTG6kFMhKRwwZq/IDlllEAw0iA7CDy AeJ58zH4jrcDrOquGsQv0tjeakRiF9sUpwdn5d7chfMUChrBQ1ppVJgeBu1qqgFRYyDp ascS2bqmywgU+zHlMNcfuY06fduntQYU5EuZyn0yYym57XZpD7kC7deaNCG2LOKb1MXD pPHw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0w90lURRWeK7/dZemzUN10IlDutKf2jPbL6BsdPwOtWm1kEOly kCufIL/v5x13wv7F2KqRsLUdIck7/fBPbN+Dbk8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsS01IyzV+xVgjyY/6qgj82rhW6Zux5qoCJEYKMkm2PYRiFNeMeVqp62ihIav7XOk2LSP97dq3zaHW74dpXslk= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3b84:: with SMTP id k4mr1463724otc.18.1583195179075; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:26:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Somers Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:26:08 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: go build, flock, and NFS_BADSEQID To: Rick Macklem Cc: freebsd-fs X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48Wd994hR7z4MND X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of asomers@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=asomers@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.03 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[45.210.85.209.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.18]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[45.210.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-1.03)[ip: (-0.47), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-2.99), asn: 15169(-1.66), country: US(-0.05)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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 00:26:23 -0000 Yeah, that makes sense to me. On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:16 PM Rick Macklem wrote: > 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 > the .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=1 fixed the problem. Thanks!. > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM Rick Macklem rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>> 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 rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>>> wrote: > Try "minorversion=1". 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 asomers@gmail.com>> > 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 > server is running 12.0-RELEASE and the client is running 12.1-RELEASE. But > the build reliably fails because flock(2) returns EACCES. Dtrace shows the > cause is nfsrpc_advlock returning NFS_BADSEQID. This sounds like an NFS > bug (server, client, or both? I'm not sure). I'm not an NFS expert. Is > this something I should pursue, and would somebody please give me advise on > how to debug further? > -Alan >