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: <596886b409e1f2037c507397e82fbca6a3ea685a.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 19:37:37 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc:     Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, 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 Mon, 2023-07-31 at 18:43 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 04:27:30PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I noticed that xfstests generic/001 was failing against linux-next nfsd.
> 
> Only on NFSv4.2 mounts, I presume?
> 

Correct.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> A client is, in fact, permitted to use a write delegation stateid
> in an otw READ operation. So, this makes sense to me.
> 

Good.

> 
> > 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>
> 
> I'm thinking this should be squashed into commit
> 68a593f24a35 ("NFSD: Enable write delegation support").
> 

Sounds great to me.

> 
> > ---
> >  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);
> 
> 			return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
> 
> might be more consistent with the other failure returns in this
> function.
> 

Shrug, it doesn't matter much. A distinctive error is nice for debugging
purposes though.

> 
> >  		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>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ