If we are trying to mount the root file system over NFS and cannot establish a connection we do never give up. TCP/2049 packets arrive at the server, RST comes back.
The reason is in newnfs_request() which seems to jump back to tryagain; at least that is my guess for the loop as I couldn't spot it earlier and the socreate() is part of the loop:
1599 XXX-BZ socreate:553^M
1600 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:155 fff 4^M
1601 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:161^M
1602 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:171 error 0^M
1603 XXX-BZ socreate:553^M
1604 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:155 fff 5^M
1605 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:161^M
1606 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:171 error 0^M
1607 XXX-BZ socreate:553^M
1608 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:155 fff 6^M
1609 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:161^M
1610 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:171 error 0^M
1611 XXX-BZ socreate:553^M
1612 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:155 fff 7^M
1613 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:161^M
1614 XXX-BZ tcp_usr_attach:171 error 0^M
I added a panic if I come by 15 times to get a backtrace.
panic() at panic+0x43/frame 0xfffffe00acf58b70
tcp_usr_attach() at tcp_usr_attach+0x2b7/frame 0xfffffe00acf58be0
socreate() at socreate+0x1ce/frame 0xfffffe00acf58c30
__rpc_nconf2socket() at __rpc_nconf2socket+0x3f/frame 0xfffffe00acf58c60
clnt_reconnect_call() at clnt_reconnect_call+0x3b6/frame 0xfffffe00acf58d10
newnfs_request() at newnfs_request+0x90b/frame 0xfffffe00acf58e80
nfsrpc_getattrnovp() at nfsrpc_getattrnovp+0xeb/frame 0xfffffe00acf59020
mountnfs() at mountnfs+0x6b6/frame 0xfffffe00acf591c0
nfs_mount() at nfs_mount+0x11d3/frame 0xfffffe00acf59500
vfs_mount_sigdefer() at vfs_mount_sigdefer+0x24/frame 0xfffffe00acf59520
vfs_domount() at vfs_domount+0x7f9/frame 0xfffffe00acf59750
vfs_donmount() at vfs_donmount+0x911/frame 0xfffffe00acf597f0
kernel_mount() at kernel_mount+0x57/frame 0xfffffe00acf59840
parse_mount() at parse_mount+0x4a1/frame 0xfffffe00acf59990
vfs_mountroot() at vfs_mountroot+0x53b/frame 0xfffffe00acf59b10
start_init() at start_init+0x28/frame 0xfffffe00acf59bb0
I would suggest we'd rather really timeout / error after <n> retries and possibly reboot or fail mountroot or whatever it'll be, rather than being stuck in a loop without letting the user know that "NFS server not reachable: connection refused".
Well, the problem with setting a limit is "how long"?
I know of a FreeBSD NFS server that exports over 72,000
file systems. I suspect that startup of a server like this can
take a while and some systems would simply want to retry
until the server is up, I think?
I also don't see much use in a panic(), since a dump or
stack trace isn't useful and another reboot cycle will
presumably end up in the same state.
I can see that spitting out a single message to the console
along the lines of "Can't connect to NFS server" would
be useful, so that sysadmins would know why the boot has
I'll have to take a look at the code to see if the mount root
case can be identified where it loops attempting reconnects,
so a message can be generated for that case. I think newnfs_connect()
does the socreate() and returns an error when it fails. However,
newnfs_request() ignores any error return, so a message could
possibly be generated there.
All of the above is just mho. I think you should ask on a mailing
list (FreeBSD-fs@ maybe?) to see what others think is the correct
behaviour for this case.
Actually, when I look at the code, it seems that there is a call
to nfs_mountdiskless()->mountnfs() and mountnfs() should fail when
This looks like it should result in a message like:
nfs_mountroot: mount <path> on /: <errno>
I have no idea why your case does not do this?
Created attachment 209371 [details]
generate a console message when RPC reconnect fails
This trivial patch might generate a console message when the reconnect fails.
Since it only happens on the first retry, hopefully it works, but is not
Untested at this time.
Sorry for no earlier feedback.
Seems I got into this condition while patching things for IPv6 support and after fixing this I cannot easily reproduce it.
The functional part of the patch seems fine to me. I keep wondering about the printf including the (NFS?) .. could the "?" be confusing to people?
I'd be happy if you'd go ahead and commit it.
Feel free to commit it (or any variant of the patch that you prefer).
I put in the "(NFS?)" since the krpc is theoretically not NFS specific,
although it happens to only be used by NFS and the NLM (rpc.lockd, which
is thought of as part of NFS by many).