Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:27:30 -0500 (EST)
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com>
To:        David G Andersen <danderse@cs.utah.edu>
Cc:        Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: yup, found it (NFS)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812170116200.378-100000@bright.fx.genx.net>
In-Reply-To: <199812170523.WAA02697@lal.cs.utah.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, David G Andersen wrote:

> Lo and behold, Karl Denninger once said:
> > What I want to know is whether a "ro,soft" mount has the same
> > vulnerability.  We use them around here for things like mounting
> > the Usenet spool.
> 
>   Nope.  Soft doesn't seem to affect it (at least, the last time I tested
> it).  Another cheap fix is to not run any nfsiods, preventing the
> asynchronous flush from occuring in the first place.
> 
>    We've been hounding on this PR for a while (that's kern/8732. :), and
> would love to see a resolution for it.  If someone wants to suggest the
> proper behavior, I'm more than happy to start drudging up a fix.
> 

p. 322 of Design and Implementation:

...begin...
3. Most system administrators take a middle ground by using an
interruptible mount that will wait forever like a hard mount, but
checks to see whether a termination signal is pending for the
process that is waiting for a server responce.  If a signal (such
as an interrupt) is sent to a process waiting for an NFS server,
the corresponding I/O system call returns with a transient error.
(*1)  Normally, the process is terminated by the signal.(*2)  If the
process shooses to catch the signal, then it can decided how to
handle the transient failure.  This mount option allows interactive
programs to be aborted when a server fails, while allowing long-running
processes to await the server's return.
...end...

This isn't exactly good, a normal write should proceed as normal
correct?  Maybe it can delay the signal and try an extra 4-5 times
and delay the signal untill after the syscall?

Has anyone been able to reproduce the same sort of situation with
a Solaris box?

Alfred Perlstein - Programmer, HotJobs Inc. - www.hotjobs.com
-- There are operating systems, and then there's FreeBSD.
-- http://www.freebsd.org/                        3.0-current

>    -Dave
> 
> -- 
> work: danderse@cs.utah.edu                     me:  angio@pobox.com
>       University of Utah                            http://www.angio.net/
>       Department of Computer Science
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812170116200.378-100000>