A FUSE filesystem server queues /dev/fuse sys_read calls to get filesystem requests to handle. It does not know in advance what would be that request as it can be anything that client issues - LOOKUP, READ, WRITE, ... Many requests are short and retrieve data from the filesystem. However WRITE and NOTIFY_REPLY write data into filesystem. Before getting into operation phase, FUSE filesystem server and kernel client negotiate what should be the maximum write size the client will ever issue. After negotiation the contract in between server/client is that the filesystem server then should queue /dev/fuse sys_read calls with enough buffer capacity to receive any client request - WRITE in particular, while FUSE client should not, in particular, send WRITE requests with > negotiated max_write payload. FUSE client in kernel and libfuse historically reserve 4K for request header. This way the contract is that filesystem server should queue sys_reads with 4K+max_write buffer. If the filesystem server does not follow this contract, what can happen is that fuse_dev_do_read will see that request size is > buffer size, and then it will return EIO to client who issued the request but won't indicate in any way that there is a problem to filesystem server. This can be hard to diagnose because for some requests, e.g. for NOTIFY_REPLY which mimics WRITE, there is no client thread that is waiting for request completion and that EIO goes nowhere, while on filesystem server side things look like the kernel is not replying back after successful NOTIFY_RETRIEVE request made by the server. -> We can make the problem easy to diagnose if we indicate via error return to filesystem server when it is violating the contract. This should not practically cause problems because if a filesystem server is using shorter buffer, writes to it were already very likely to cause EIO, and if the filesystem is read-only it should be too following 8K minimum buffer size (= either FUSE_MIN_READ_BUFFER, see 1d3d752b47, or = 4K + min(max_write)=4k cared to be so by process_init_reply). Please see [1] for context where the problem of stuck filesystem was hit for real (because kernel client was incorrectly sending more than max_write data with NOTIFY_REPLY; see also previous patch), how the situation was traced and for more involving patch that did not make it into the tree. [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=155057023600853&w=2 Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@xxxxxxxxx> --- fs/fuse/dev.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c index 38e94bc43053..8fdfbafed037 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c @@ -1317,6 +1317,16 @@ static ssize_t fuse_dev_do_read(struct fuse_dev *fud, struct file *file, unsigned reqsize; unsigned int hash; + /* + * Require sane minimum read buffer - that has capacity for fixed part + * of any request header + negotated max_write room for data. If the + * requirement is not satisfied return EINVAL to the filesystem server + * to indicate that it is not following FUSE server/client contract. + * Don't dequeue / abort any request. + */ + if (nbytes < (fc->conn_init ? 4096 + fc->max_write : FUSE_MIN_READ_BUFFER)) + return -EINVAL; + restart: spin_lock(&fiq->waitq.lock); err = -EAGAIN; -- 2.21.0.352.gf09ad66450
