Hi Paulo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 08:00:58PM -0300, Paulo Alcantara wrote:
Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org writes:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:25:16PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:27:49PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:49:23PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi Paulo, hi Greg,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:43:52PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi Paulo, hi Greg,
Note this is about the 5.10.y backports of the cifs issue, were system calls fail with "Resource temporarily unavailable".
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 12:58:49PM -0300, Paulo Alcantara wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org writes: > > > Why can't we just include eb3e28c1e89b ("smb3: Replace smb2pdu 1-element > > arrays with flex-arrays") to resolve this? > > Yep, this is the right way to go. > > > I've queued it up now. > > Thanks!
Is the underlying issue by picking the three commits:
3080ea5553cc ("stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper") eb3e28c1e89b ("smb3: Replace smb2pdu 1-element arrays with flex-arrays")
and the last commit in linux-stable-rc for 5.10.y:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/c...
really fixing the issue?
Since we need to release a new update in Debian, I picked those three for testing on top of the 5.10.209-1 and while testing explicitly a cifs mount, I still get:
statfs(".", 0x7ffd809d5a70) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
The same happens if I build https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/c... (knowing that it is not yet ready for review).
I'm slight confused as a280ecca48be ("cifs: fix off-by-one in SMB2_query_info_init()") says in the commit message:
[...] v5.10.y doesn't have
eb3e28c1e89b ("smb3: Replace smb2pdu 1-element arrays with flex-arrays")and the commit does [...]
and in meanwhile though the eb3e28c1e89b was picked (in a backported version). As 6.1.75-rc2 itself does not show the same problem, might there be a prerequisite missing in the backports for 5.10.y or a backport being wrong?
The problem seems to be that we are picking the backport for eb3e28c1e89b, but then still applying
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/c...
which was made for the case in 5.10.y where eb3e28c1e89b is not present.
I reverted a280ecca48beb40ca6c0fc20dd5 and now:
statfs(".", {f_type=SMB2_MAGIC_NUMBER, f_bsize=4096, f_blocks=2189197, f_bfree=593878, f_bavail=593878, f_files=0, f_ffree=0, f_fsid={val=[2004816114, 0]}, f_namelen=255, f_frsize=4096, f_flags=ST_VALID|ST_RELATIME}) = 0
So this works? Would that just be easier to do overall? I feel like that might be best here.
Again, a set of simple "do this and this and this" would be nice to have, as there are too many threads here, some incomplete and missing commits on my end.
confused,
It is quite chaotic, since I believe multiple people worked on trying to resolve the issue, and then for the 5.10.y and 5.15.y branches different initial commits were applied.
For 5.10.y it's the case: Keep the backport of eb3e28c1e89b and drop a280ecca48be (as it is not true that v5.10.y does not have eb3e28c1e89b, as it is actually in the current 5.10.y queue).
I think we are good now.
Paulo can you please give Greg an authoratitative set of commits to keep/apply in the 5.10.y and 5.15.y series.
Yes, anything I missed?
The one-liner fix (a280ecca48be) provided by Harshit was only required if not backporting eb3e28c1e89b. As both 5.10.y and 5.15.y now have eb3e28c1e89b queued up, LGTM.
Salvatore, please let us know if you can still hit the issue with eb3e28c1e89b applied.
Correct, I cannot reproduce anymore the issue with 5.10.210-rc1.
Regards, Salvatore