Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-3518

liblustreapi.a not forward compatible between 2.1.5 and 2.3.0 (maybe others)

Details

    • Bug
    • Resolution: Duplicate
    • Minor
    • None
    • Lustre 2.3.0, Lustre 2.1.5
    • 3
    • 8851

    Description

      Binaries utilizing liblustreapi.a compiled with 2.1.5 do not function
      properly with 2.3.0. This may affect other versions as well, but these
      are what we're currently running.

      Here is a simple reproducer (call bug.c):

      #include <stdio.h>
      #include <lustre/liblustreapi.h>

      int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
      // set stripe count to 2 with default stripe size
      if (llapi_file_create(argv[1], 0, -1, 2, 0))

      { perror("problem"); }

      }

      Compile as follows:

      gcc bug.c -Wl,-Bstatic -llustreapi -Wl,-Bdynamic

      Give a non-existing file name on lustre as an argument. When you
      compile on a 2.1.5 system, it works fine on 2.1.5 systems:

      client215[556]/nobackupp2/user1> ~/a.out aaa
      client215[557]/nobackupp2/user1>

      but gives a bogus error on 2.3.0 systems:

      client230[590]/nobackupp2/pkolano> ~/a.out bbb
      error on ioctl 0x4008669a for 'bbb' (3): stripe already set
      problem: File exists

      When you compile on a 2.3.0 system, it works fine on both:

      client215[568]/nobackupp2/user1> ~/a.out aaa
      client215[569]/nobackupp2/user1>

      client230[602]/nobackupp2/user1> ~/a.out bbb
      client230[603]/nobackupp2/user1>

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [LU-3518] liblustreapi.a not forward compatible between 2.1.5 and 2.3.0 (maybe others)
            pjones Peter Jones made changes -
            Resolution New: Duplicate [ 3 ]
            Status Original: Open [ 1 ] New: Resolved [ 5 ]
            pjones Peter Jones added a comment -

            Seems to be a duplicate of LU-812

            pjones Peter Jones added a comment - Seems to be a duplicate of LU-812

            Jay,
            Did we get this answered to your satisfaction?
            If so, can I go ahead and mark the ticket as resolved?
            Thanks,
            ~ jfc.

            jfc John Fuchs-Chesney (Inactive) added a comment - Jay, Did we get this answered to your satisfaction? If so, can I go ahead and mark the ticket as resolved? Thanks, ~ jfc.
            pjones Peter Jones made changes -
            Labels Original: mn1 p4n New: mn1

            Hi,
            Yes, the binary built against the b2_1 without the patch would be incompatible about the flag O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE.
            and it will affect the applications using this flag and won't affect the server side for the patch only affects the clients.

            hongchao.zhang Hongchao Zhang added a comment - Hi, Yes, the binary built against the b2_1 without the patch would be incompatible about the flag O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE. and it will affect the applications using this flag and won't affect the server side for the patch only affects the clients.

            Your patch worked for us.

            One concern. If this patch is landed to b2_1, wouldn't it make later 2.1.x release binary incompatible with releases without the patch?

            jaylan Jay Lan (Inactive) added a comment - Your patch worked for us. One concern. If this patch is landed to b2_1, wouldn't it make later 2.1.x release binary incompatible with releases without the patch?
            adilger Andreas Dilger made changes -
            Labels Original: p4n New: mn1 p4n
            adilger Andreas Dilger made changes -
            Link New: This issue duplicates LU-812 [ LU-812 ]
            pjones Peter Jones made changes -
            Labels New: p4n

            the patch against b2_1 is tracked at http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/6933/

            hongchao.zhang Hongchao Zhang added a comment - the patch against b2_1 is tracked at http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/6933/

            People

              hongchao.zhang Hongchao Zhang
              kolano Paul Kolano (Inactive)
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: