linux-kernel - Re: Kernel 3.4.X NFS server regression

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: <20120611102947.229cf077@corrin.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:29:47 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc:	bfields <bfields@...ldses.org>, Steve Dickson <steved@...hat.com>,
	"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Joerg Platte <jplatte@...sa.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hans de Bruin <jmdebruin@...net.nl>
Subject: Re: Kernel 3.4.X NFS server regression

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:44:09 +0300
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:

> On 06/11/2012 04:32 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> 
> > On 06/11/2012 03:39 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > 
> >>>
> >>> But I'm guessing we were wrong to assume that existing setups that
> >>> people perceived as working would have that path, because the failures
> >>> in the absence of that path were probably less obvious.
> >>>
> 
> 
> One more thing, the most important one. We have already fixed that in the
> past and I was hoping the lesson was learned. Apparently it was not, and
> we are doomed to do this mistake for ever!!
> 
> What ever crap fails times out and crashes, in the recovery code, we don't
> give a dam. It should never affect any Server-client communication.
> 
> When the grace periods ends the clients gates opens period. *Any* error
> return from state recovery code must be carefully ignored and normal
> operations resumed. At most on error, we move into a mode where any
> recovery request from client is accepted, since we don't have any better
> data to verify it.
> 
> Please comb recovery code to make sure any catastrophe is safely ignored.
> We already did that before and it used to work.
> 

That's not the case, and hasn't ever been AFAICT. The code has changed
a bit recently, but the existing behavior in this regard was preserved.
>From nfs4_check_open_reclaim:

        return nfsd4_client_record_check(clp) ? nfserr_reclaim_bad : nfs_ok;

...if there is no client record, then the reclaim request fails. Doesn't
the RFC mandate that?

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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/