linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull NFS client changes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHQdGtS3LqNxoqp-Zec+n_gtJRKFUz_fSH_S8HQeRSYGFtK9Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:06:07 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull NFS client changes

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:01:36PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:59:00AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> > This contains about 12 commits new since Sept 1 and the last 6 are only
>> > appearing in linux-next today (though I did not do Friday and Monday's
>> > linux-next).  Not judging, just noting.
>>
>> And one of tese recent commits causes a regression for block layouts
>> in xfstests generic/075.  Still need to check which one.
>
> "NFSv4.1/pNFS: Don't request a minimal read layout beyond the end of file"
>
> is the culprit, posted to the list for the first time and committed on
> Aug 31.

That looks like it is tickling a server protocol bug.

The minimum length is just that; a minimum. If the server wants the
layout to be block aligned, then it is supposed to adjust the returned
offset + length values so that they cover the range described by the
offset+minimum length (see table 13 on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5661#page-540).
The server is only supposed to fail the LAYOUTGET request if it is
completely unable to meet those requirements. Furthermore, it is
supposed to return either NFS4ERR_BADLAYOUT or NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER
(depending on what the value of the minimum layout was); as far as I
can see, the current code is returning NFS4ERR_LAYOUTUNAVAILABLE.

Cheers,
  Trond
--
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/