On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:45:09AM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 16:48 +0000, Adamson, Dros wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 12:13 -0400, Weston Andros Adamson wrote:
> > >> Commit 97431204ea005ec8070ac94bc3251e836daa7ca7 introduced a regression
> > >> that causes SECINFO_NO_NAME to fail without sending an RPC if:
> > >>
> > >> 1) the nfs_client's rpc_client is using krb5i/p (now tried by default)
> > >> 2) the current user doesn't have valid kerberos credentials
> > >>
> > >> This situation is quite common - as of now a sec=sys mount would use
> > >> krb5i for the nfs_client's rpc_client and a user would hardly be faulted
> > >> for not having run kinit.
> > >>
> > >> The solution is to use the machine cred when trying to use an integrity
> > >> protected auth flavor for SECINFO_NO_NAME.
> > >>
> > >> Older servers may not support using the machine cred or an integrity
> > >> protected auth flavor for SECINFO_NO_NAME in every circumstance, so we fall
> > >> back to using the user's cred and the filesystem's auth flavor in this case.
> > >>
> > >> We run into another problem when running against linux nfs servers -
> > >> they return NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC when using integrity auth flavor (unless the
> > >> mount is also that flavor) even though that is not a valid error for
> > >> SECINFO*. Even though it's against spec, handle WRONGSEC errors on
> > >> SECINFO_NO_NAME by falling back to using the user cred and the
> > >> filesystem's auth flavor.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Weston Andros Adamson <dros@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >>
> > >> This patch goes along with yesterday's SECINFO patch
> > >>
> > >> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > >> index ab1461e..74b37f5 100644
> > >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > >> @@ -7291,7 +7291,8 @@ out:
> > >> */
> > >> static int
> > >> _nfs41_proc_secinfo_no_name(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle,
> > >> - struct nfs_fsinfo *info, struct nfs4_secinfo_flavors *flavors)
> > >> + struct nfs_fsinfo *info,
> > >> + struct nfs4_secinfo_flavors *flavors, bool use_integrity)
> > >> {
> > >> struct nfs41_secinfo_no_name_args args = {
> > >> .style = SECINFO_STYLE_CURRENT_FH,
> > >> @@ -7304,8 +7305,23 @@ _nfs41_proc_secinfo_no_name(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle,
> > >> .rpc_argp = &args,
> > >> .rpc_resp = &res,
> > >> };
> > >> - return nfs4_call_sync(server->nfs_client->cl_rpcclient, server, &msg,
> > >> - &args.seq_args, &res.seq_res, 0);
> > >> + struct rpc_clnt *clnt = server->client;
> > >> + int status;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (use_integrity) {
> > >> + clnt = server->nfs_client->cl_rpcclient;
> > >> + msg.rpc_cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(server->nfs_client);
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + dprintk("--> %s\n", __func__);
> > >> + status = nfs4_call_sync(clnt, server, &msg, &args.seq_args,
> > >> + &res.seq_res, 0);
> > >> + dprintk("<-- %s status=%d\n", __func__, status);
> > >> +
> > >> + if (msg.rpc_cred)
> > >> + put_rpccred(msg.rpc_cred);
> > >> +
> > >> + return status;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> static int
> > >> @@ -7315,7 +7331,24 @@ nfs41_proc_secinfo_no_name(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle,
> > >> struct nfs4_exception exception = { };
> > >> int err;
> > >> do {
> > >> - err = _nfs41_proc_secinfo_no_name(server, fhandle, info, flavors);
> > >> + /* first try using integrity protection */
> > >> + err = -NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC;
> > >> +
> > >> + /* try to use integrity protection with machine cred */
> > >> + if (_nfs4_is_integrity_protected(server->nfs_client))
> > >> + err = _nfs41_proc_secinfo_no_name(server, fhandle, info,
> > >> + flavors, true);
> > >> +
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * if unable to use integrity protection, or SECINFO with
> > >> + * integrity protection returns NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC (which is
> > >> + * disallowed by spec, but exists in deployed servers) use
> > >> + * the current filesystem's rpc_client and the user cred.
> > >> + */
> > >> + if (err == -NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC)
> > >> + err = _nfs41_proc_secinfo_no_name(server, fhandle, info,
> > >> + flavors, false);
> > >
> > > As I said yesterday, RFC5661 forbids SECINFO_NO_NAME from returning
> > > NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC, so this is 100% equivalent to
> > >
> > > if (!_nfs4_is_integrity_protected())
> > > err = ….
> >
> > Right, but I thought we were doing this to support server implementations like linux that *do* return NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC on SECINFO_NO_NAME even though it's forbidden. I know we normally don't work around server bugs, but this seems pretty simple.
> >
> > If we don't do this, then SECINFO_NO_NAME will always fail against current linux severs no matter what the mount options - unless krb5i/p is unusable (not configured, time skew, no machine cred, etc).
>
> Bruce, you're it: what's the deal here?
Dros, in what cases exactly do you see SECINFO_NO_NAME returning
WRONGSEC?
>From a quick skim of the code it looks like it shouldn't happen in the
CURRENT_FH case, which is the one the client uses. But I probably
overlooked something....
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
