On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:45:53PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > Does open() of directory _without_ O_DIRECTORY work in e.g. vanilla 2.6.33?
> > It certainly does for local filesystems and it does for NFSv3; does it work
> > for NFSv4?
>
> In my tests. Every thing is the same safe the client with the above change.
>
> So I guess NFSv4 does something different when asked for directory lookup
> as opposed to files lookup. I guess there is something added/removed to
> the compound depending on that flag. But I wouldn't know, I am not familiar
> with this code. NFSv4 someone?
OK, what happens if you do the following:
mount the same fs from two clients
on one client:
mkdir /mnt/weird_name_69
on another:
echo 'main() {open("/mnt/weird_name_69", 0);}' >/tmp/a.c
gcc /tmp/a.c
strace ./a.out
ls -l /mnt/weird_name_69
strace ./a.out
Will the first strace show EISDIR and the second succeed?
>From my reading of that code (2.6.33, before all that stuff got merged),
we have different behaviour depending on which codepath do we hit.
If we go through ->d_revalidate(), it sees that it's not S_ISREG() and
doesn't try to play with atomic open. If we go through ->lookup(), we
tell the server to open it, and when it tells us to bugger off (it's a
directory, NFSv4 doesn't support atomic open for those), -EISDIR is
passed to caller. Which leads to open() failing.
It definitely looks like a bug. Masked by O_DIRECTORY in 2.6.33. Bug
in fs/namei.c patch has exposed that crap both for O_DIRECTORY and !O_DIRECTORY
cases.
So immediate fix will need to be along the lines of "add LOOKUP_DIRECTORY
even on the last step if we have *want_dir" (and I'd probably get rid of
want_dir then and just abuse nd->flags), but there's a real NFS bug as
well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
