linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] nfsd: don't hand out write delegations on O

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: <bd3dc956d7b43f34ee458992919c5afd71abd3d3.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:44:04 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
        Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] nfsd: don't hand out write delegations on O_WRONLY
 opens

On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 08:11 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2023, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I noticed that xfstests generic/001 was failing against linux-next nfsd.
> > 
> > The client would request a OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE open, and the server
> > would hand out a write delegation. The client would then try to use that
> > write delegation as the source stateid in a COPY or CLONE operation, and
> > the server would respond with NFS4ERR_STALE.
> > 
> > The problem is that the struct file associated with the delegation does
> > not necessarily have read permissions. It's handing out a write
> > delegation on what is effectively an O_WRONLY open. RFC 8881 states:
> > 
> >  "An OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation allows the client to handle, on its
> >   own, all opens."
> > 
> > Given that the client didn't request any read permissions, and that nfsd
> > didn't check for any, it seems wrong to give out a write delegation.
> > 
> > Don't hand out a delegation if the client didn't request
> > OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH.
> > 
> > This fixes xfstest generic/001.
> > 
> > Closes: https://bugzilla.linux-nfs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index ef7118ebee00..9f1c90afed72 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -5462,6 +5462,8 @@ nfs4_set_delegation(struct nfsd4_open *open, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp,
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
> >  
> >  	if (open->op_share_access & NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE) {
> > +		if (!(open->op_share_access & NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ))
> > +			return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
> <bikeshed>
> The actual error code returned by nfs4_set_delegation() is ignored -
> only the fact of an error is relevant.
> Given that, how did you choose -EBADF.  nfsd doesn't use file
> descriptors, and doesn't use EBADF anywhere else.
> Given that you have just tested access, EACCES might be justifiable.
> But I would prefer if nfs4_set_delegation() returns NULL if it could not
> find or create a delegation, without bothering with giving a reason.
> </bikeshed>
> 

I chose EBADF because the fcntl code uses it for similar purposes. From
the manpage:

EBADF	cmd is F_SETLK or F_SETLKW and the file descriptor open       
	mode doesn't match with the type of lock requested.

We're requesting a "lock" here in a delegation, so this made some sense
to me. I'm not particular here though. If another error makes more
sense, then that's fine.


> Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> 

Thanks!

> NeilBrown
> 
> >  		nf = find_writeable_file(fp);
> >  		dl_type = NFS4_OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE;
> >  	} else {
> > 
> > ---
> > base-commit: ec89391563792edd11d138a853901bce76d11f44
> > change-id: 20230731-wdeleg-bbdb6b25a3c6
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > -- 
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>