linux-kernel - Re: NFS regression in v3.5-rc1: mount.nfs yells about incorrect mount option

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FD1FFFD.3020301@netapp.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:37:01 -0400
From:	Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...app.com>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NFS regression in v3.5-rc1: mount.nfs yells about incorrect mount
 option

On 06/08/2012 09:33 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:20:02AM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 09:03 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2012 11:50 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>>>> mount -o nfsvers=3 ...
>>>>
>>>> What about `mount -o vers=4 ...`?  I'm compiling a kernel right now to
>>>> see if I can reproduce this, what NFS .config options do you have set?
>>>> (`cat .config | grep CONFIG_NFS_` should be good enough).
>>>
>>> Okay, I tracked it down somewhat. The problem is that the nfs-version
>>> is not set in my case so that data->version in nfs_init_server is 0. The
>>> function returns -EPROTONOSUPPORT in this case which causes the mount
>>> to fail. The evil commit is db8333519 and reverting it fixes the issue
>>> for me. Patch attached.
>>
>> Thanks!  I wasn't able to reproduce this on Ubuntu 12.04, so now I'm
>> setting up 10.04 to see if that makes a difference.  I'd like to
>> understand what's going on (and why my other patch didn't fix this
>> problem) before reverting.
> 
> Your other patch only touched the nfs4 path, but in my setup nfs3 was in
> use. Therefore the patch didn't help. I just figured out that
> nfs_fs_mount is shared between nfs23 and nfs4, so the first patch
> probably breaks nfs4. I send another one which takes this into account.

Would something like this work? (I haven't tried it yet).  Setting it in nfs_alloc_parsed_mount_data() might work too...

diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
index bdd6731..906f09c 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
@@ -1867,6 +1867,7 @@ static int nfs23_validate_mount_data(void *options,
        if (data == NULL)
                goto out_no_data;
 
+       args->version = NFS_DEFAULT_VERSION;
        switch (data->version) {
        case 1:
                data->namlen = 0;
--


> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Joerg
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/