linux-kernel - Re: Linux-next-20190823: x86_64/i386: prot_hsymlinks.c:325: Failed to run cmd: useradd hsym

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: <866876796.8349197.1566901536625.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 06:25:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
Cc:     naresh kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        the hoang0709 <the_hoang0709@...oo.com>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, ltp@...ts.linux.it,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrubis@...e.cz,
        alexey kodanev <alexey.kodanev@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Linux-next-20190823: x86_64/i386: prot_hsymlinks.c:325: Failed
 to run cmd: useradd hsym


----- Original Message -----
> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 19:12 -0400, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 10:38 -0400, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > Hi Jan and Cyril,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 16:35, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > Do you see this LTP prot_hsymlinks failure on linux next
> > > > > > > > 20190823 on
> > > > > > > > x86_64 and i386 devices?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > test output log,
> > > > > > > > useradd: failure while writing changes to /etc/passwd
> > > > > > > > useradd: /home/hsym was created, but could not be removed
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This looks like an unrelated problem, failure to write to
> > > > > > > /etc/passwd
> > > > > > > probably means that filesystem is full or some problem
> > > > > > > happend
> > > > > > > and how
> > > > > > > is remounted RO.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In Naresh' example, root is on NFS:
> > > > > >   root=/dev/nfs rw
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > nfsroot=10.66.16.123:/var/lib/lava/dispatcher/tmp/886412/extr
> > > > > > act-
> > > > > > nfsrootfs-tyuevoxm,tcp,hard,intr
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right !
> > > > > root is mounted on NFS.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 10.66.16.123:/var/lib/lava/dispatcher/tmp/886412/extract-
> > > > > > nfsrootfs-tyuevoxm
> > > > > > on / type nfs
> > > > > > (rw,relatime,vers=2,rsize=4096,wsize=4096,namlen=255,hard,nol
> > > > > > ock,
> > > > > > proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,mountaddr=10.66.16.123,
> > > > > > moun
> > > > > > tvers=1,mountproto=tcp,local_lock=all,addr=10.66.16.123)
> > > > > > devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs
> > > > > > (rw,relatime,size=3977640k,nr_inodes=994410,mode=755)
> > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > The only thing I can think of that might cause an EIO on NFSv2
> > > would be
> > > this patch
> > > http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=trondmy/linux-nfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=627d48e597ec5993c4abb3b81dc75e554a07c7c0
> > > assuming that a bind-related error is leaking through.
> > > 
> > > I'd suggest something like the following to fix it up:
> > 
> > No change with that patch,
> > but following one fixes it for me:
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/pagelist.c b/fs/nfs/pagelist.c
> > index 20b3717cd7ca..56cefa0ab804 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/pagelist.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/pagelist.c
> > @@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static void nfs_pgio_rpcsetup(struct
> > nfs_pgio_header *hdr,
> >         }
> >  
> >         hdr->res.fattr   = &hdr->fattr;
> > -       hdr->res.count   = 0;
> > +       hdr->res.count   = count;
> >         hdr->res.eof     = 0;
> >         hdr->res.verf    = &hdr->verf;
> >         nfs_fattr_init(&hdr->fattr);
> > 
> > which is functionally revert of "NFS: Fix initialisation of I/O
> > result struct in nfs_pgio_rpcsetup".
> > 
> > This hunk caught my eye, could res.eof == 0 explain those I/O errors?
> 
> Interesting hypothesis. It could if res.count ends up being 0. So does
> the following also fix the problem?

It didn't fix it.

That theory is probably not correct for this case, since EIO I see appears
to originate from write and nfs_writeback_result(). This function also
produces message we saw in logs from Naresh.

I can't find where/how is resp->count updated on WRITE reply in NFSv2.
Issue also goes away with patch below, though I can't speak about its correctness:

NFS version     Type    Test    Return code
nfsvers=2       tcp     -b:base         0
nfsvers=2       tcp     -g:general      0
nfsvers=2       tcp     -s:special      0
nfsvers=2       tcp     -l:lock         0
Total time: 141

diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs2xdr.c b/fs/nfs/nfs2xdr.c
index cbc17a203248..4913c6da270b 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs2xdr.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs2xdr.c
@@ -897,6 +897,16 @@ static int nfs2_xdr_dec_writeres(struct rpc_rqst *req, struct xdr_stream *xdr,
                                 void *data)
 {
        struct nfs_pgio_res *result = data;
+       struct rpc_task *rq_task  = req->rq_task;
+
+       if (rq_task) {
+               struct nfs_pgio_args *args = rq_task->tk_msg.rpc_argp;
+
+               if (args) {
+                       result->count = args->count;
+               }
+       }
 
        /* All NFSv2 writes are "file sync" writes */
        result->verf->committed = NFS_FILE_SYNC;