Fwd: Autofs: spurious (?) log messages and zombies from automountd

[Edward Tomasz Napierała]

On 0926T0840, Hans Ottevanger wrote:
> Reposting here (with typos in subject corrected) after no response from 
> stable@ for almost two days.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Aitofs: spurious (?) jog messages and zombies from automountd
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:10:05 +0200
> From: Hans Ottevanger <hans at beastielabs.net>
> To: freebsd-stable at FreeBSD.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> When accessing a directory for the first time on /net, automounted using
> the new autofs, I reproducibly get error messages in the log.
> 
> I have exported a single directory (read/write) from my test server:
> 
> $ showmount -e soekris
> 
> Exports list on soekris:
> /home
> 
> My client runs 10-STABLE, also known as 10.1-BETA2 these days, updated
> to r272021. The kernel config is GENERIC minus devices that I do not
> have, with AUTOFS added.
> 
> When accessing the server for the first time using:
> 
> ls /net/soekris/home/hans
> 
> I get the expected directory listing but immediately also see the
> following in /var/log/messages:
> 
> Sep 24 07:39:09 beastie automountd[1554]: child process 2096 terminated
> with exit status 1
> Sep 24 07:39:09 beastie automountd[1554]: child process 2101 terminated
> with exit status 1

There are no log messages preceding this?

> Additionally, a zombie process keep hanging forever:
> 
> $ pstree 1554
> -+= 01554 root /usr/sbin/automountd
>   \--- 02106 root <defunct>
> 
> When I wait until the directory is autounmounted and retry the access,
> the zombie disappears (apparently finally waited for) and I get two
> others in return:
> 
> $ pstree 1554
> -+= 01554 root /usr/sbin/automountd
>   |--- 02658 root <defunct>
>   \--- 02663 root <defunct>
> 
> and a few extra log messages:
> 
> Sep 24 08:52:17 beastie automountd[1554]: child process 2106 terminated
> with exit status 1
> Sep 24 08:52:17 beastie automountd[1554]: child process 2653 terminated
> with exit status 1
> 
> Is anyone else seeing this?
> Do I miss something?
> Is this expected behavior?

Not quite; I'll try to reproduce it.