On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:05:09PM +0000, Adamson, Dros wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Dr James Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:17:37PM +0000, Adamson, Dros wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Dr James Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> SECINFO_NO_NAME will fail with NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC in check_nfsd_access when the rpc auth flavor is different from the export's auth flavor - in the same way as SECINFO.
> >
> > Huh. There's no check_nfsd_access call in secinfo_no_name in the
> > CURRENT_FH case. And any checks on the putfh op should be turned off by
> > the OP_HANDLES_WRONGSEC flag on secinfo_no_name.
> >
> > But I haven't actually tried it, and presumably you have (any hints on
> > reproducing?), so I'll take a look....
> >
> > --b.
>
> You may be right here - I'm pretty sure I saw SECINFO_NO_NAME fail like this, but I'm not 100%. I'll try to reproduce and report back.
OK, thanks.--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
