https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-10937 Lustre <p>Several problems exist for the GSS / sptlrpc code. The problems are:</p> <p>1) lctl set_param  P does not work with sptlrpc  <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-7183" title="lctl set_param -P does not work for sptlrpc flavor" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-7183"><del>LU-7183</del></a></p> <p>2) Specific mgs bingings for sptlrpc is broken. <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9034" title="Separate the config logs between different MGCs" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9034"><del>LU-9034</del></a> / <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9086" title="obd_config.c:1258:class_process_config()) no device for:" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9086"><del>LU-9086</del></a> / <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9567" title="sptlrpc rules are not being updated" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9567"><del>LU-9567</del></a></p> <p>    With the move to kobjects with sysfs we could the kobject instead.</p> <p>3) After the move to sysfs we can use udev events instead of polling the proc files like what is now done in for example svgssd.</p> <p> </p> Lustre with sptlrpc/gss enabled. LU-10937

Use sysfs to fix up sptlrpc handling.

Bug Major Open Unresolved James A Simmons James A Simmons Sat, 21 Apr 2018 18:42:03 +0000 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:06:48 +0000 Lustre 2.12.0 0 2 <p>James Simmons (uja.ornl@yahoo.com) uploaded a new patch: <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/33311" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/33311</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-10937" title="Use sysfs to fix up sptlrpc handling." class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-10937">LU-10937</a> mgc: restore mgc binding for sptlrpc<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: 1<br/> Commit: 2347c82412b29c0777f5907551164d5cc27b80d4</p> <p>Developers from Cray reported to me that the band aid fix landed for <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9567" title="sptlrpc rules are not being updated" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9567"><del>LU-9567</del></a> actually can cause an MSG server failover to crash the node. So I looked this after noon and figured out how to final resolve <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9034" title="Separate the config logs between different MGCs" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-9034"><del>LU-9034</del></a>. This will be needed for the LTS release.</p> <p>Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/33311/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/33311/</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-10937" title="Use sysfs to fix up sptlrpc handling." class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-10937">LU-10937</a> mgc: restore mgc binding for sptlrpc<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: <br/> Commit: ca9300e53dc2b7bcaaa5482bb4234cce7d9a344e</p> <p>I started to do a code review and I have noticed a bunch of potential bugs in general. This is just for the lctl conf_param case. The first question would be are the targets, the first *. field, just the following types:</p> <p>lctl conf_param lustre.srpc.****</p> <p>lctl conf_param lustre-OST0000.srpc.***</p> <p>lctl conf_param lustre-MDT0000.srpc.***</p> <p>for example.</p> <p>If that is the case we can simply replace obdname2fsname() with server_name2fsname(). If server_name2fsname() returns an error then we know the target is a file system.</p> <p>Next bug I noticed is that if we supply an obd device as a target plus a direction we don't validate the direction. The following should fail but doesn't</p> <p>lctl conf_param lustre-MDT0000.srpc.flavor.default.cli2ost=skpi.</p> <p>Lastly I noticed the network type supplied can easily break. Consider the case of a file system named test that are Cray clients and you have routers in between that convert to o2ib1 with infiniband storage backend. So if you do</p> <p> lctl conf_param test.srpc.flavor.o2ib1=skpi</p> <p>Does this filter so only the server back end is updated to skpi? I noticed we don't really test what LNet network interface is in use when setting the rule. Is it valid do a partial setup in this case?</p> <p> </p> <p>James Simmons (uja.ornl@yahoo.com) uploaded a new patch: <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/33760" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/33760</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-10937" title="Use sysfs to fix up sptlrpc handling." class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-10937">LU-10937</a> sptlrpc: split sptlrpc_process_config()<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: 1<br/> Commit: 62c61bb1c4692f1c608047210befd9cb9dedc449</p> <p>Oleg Drokin (green@whamcloud.com) merged in patch <a href="https://review.whamcloud.com/33760/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://review.whamcloud.com/33760/</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-10937" title="Use sysfs to fix up sptlrpc handling." class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-10937">LU-10937</a> sptlrpc: split sptlrpc_process_config()<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: <br/> Commit: 0ff7d548eb7bf0c04836c7d6809cac163e0ffc2c</p> Related LU-9567 LU-9034 LU-9086 LU-7183 LU-7004 Development Rank 1|hzzw5z: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807 Severity