Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Marko Rauhamaa
> <marko.rauhamaa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> It was definitely not the intention to leak this error code to
>>> userland. EOPENSTALE is not a POSIX sanctioned error code, so
>>> applications generally don't know anything about it and will be
>>> confused.
>>
>> Got it. I will try to work on a reproduction and make a proper bug
>> report.
>
> Try this:
>
> - watch a single file for permissions events (so you will only have
> one event in the queue)
> - open file from client to generate single event (don't read event yet)
> - remove file from server (to make it stale)
> - read event (with stale file)
I did that and reproduced the problem on a recent development kernel.
Happens every time.
Just take the example program listed under "man fanotify" ("fantest")
and follow these steps:
==============================================================
NFS Server NFS Client(1) NFS Client(2)
==============================================================
# echo foo >/nfsshare/bar.txt
# cat /nfsshare/bar.txt
foo
# ./fantest /nfsshare
Press enter key to terminate.
Listening for events.
# rm -f /nfsshare/bar.txt
# cat /nfsshare/bar.txt
read: Unknown error 518
cat: /nfsshare/bar.txt: Operation not permitted
==============================================================
where NFS Client (1) and (2) are two terminal sessions on a single NFS
Client machine.
So what do we conclude? Is this a kernel bug or works as designed?
> Oh my. I completely misread your report before. I though you were
> trying to read from the event->fd. Now I understand that you mean read
> from fanotify fd. That will definitely return the error, but only in
> the special case where open error happened on the first event being
> read to the buffer. If error happens after adding some events to the
> buffer, fanotify process will not know about this. Regular event will
> be silently dropped and permission event will be denied.
>
> [...]
>
> You do NOT need to call fanotify_init() again, the next read will read
> the next event.
It does appear that reading the fanotify fd again does the trick.
However, the client gets an EPERM instead of ENOENT, which is a bit
weird.
> The fix seems trivial and I can post it once you have the test:
> - return EAGAIN for read in case of a single event in queue without fd
> so apps getting the read error will have a good idea what to do
> - in case of non single event, maybe copy event with error on event->fd
> to the buffer for specific errors that make sense to report (EMFILE)
> so a watcher checks the values of negative event->fd can maybe do
> something about it (e.g. provide a smaller buffer).
EAGAIN would be perfect for me since I'm using fanotify in a nonblocking
mode. It might be a bit surprising in the blocking case.
Marko
--
+358 44 990 4795
Skype: marko.rauhamaa_f-secure
