From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  2 15:27:12 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: fs@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E047416A41F
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 15:27:12 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca)
Received: from moe.cs.uoguelph.ca (moe.cs.uoguelph.ca [131.104.96.55])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B20A43D76
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2005 15:27:07 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca)
Received: from snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca
	[131.104.48.1])
	by moe.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j72FR6w9014957;
	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:27:06 -0400
Received: (from rick@localhost)
	by snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA45116;
	Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca
Message-Id: <200508021527.LAA45116@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca>
To: kris@obsecurity.org
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44
Cc: fs@freebsd.org, openbsd-nfsv4@sfobug.org
Subject: Re: Re: FreeBSD6.0-BETA1 panics
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:27:13 -0000

> I suspect the server is returning bogus data, perhaps because of the
> locking problems.

My server doesn't support the lockd/statd protocol, so v3 mounts won't
have any advisory locking support. Is that likely to be the cause of this?
(I don't know anything about the inner workings of cvs.)

> OK, I triggered another deadlock while running a simultaneous cvs
> checkout on the server (via ufs) and over nfs3 from a remote machine.

Ok, thanks for the info. I'll try and figure this one out.
(Given your original panic, I assume you're running a kernel with
 DEBUG_LOCKS and DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS options? That would have caught the
 obvious "forgot to unlock the vnode" type problems, which would suggest
 a race between the local ufs syscall and newnfsd for vnode locking.
 Could be a fun one to find:-)

Thanks for the debug info, rick