On Nov 12, 2013, at 0:11, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:33:14 -0500 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 11/11/13 13:30, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>> >>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09/11/13 18:12, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >>>>>> One alternative to the above scheme, which I believe that I’ve >>>>>> suggested before, is to have a permanent entry in rpc_pipefs >>>>>> that rpc.gssd can open and that the kernel can use to detect >>>>>> that it is running. If we make it /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/gssd/clnt00/gssd, >>>>>> then AFAICS we don’t need to change nfs-utils at all, since all newer >>>>>> versions of rpc.gssd will try to open for read anything of the form >>>>>> /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/*/clntXX/gssd... >>>>> >>>>> After further review I am going going have to disagree with you on this. >>>>> Since all the context is cached on the initial mount the kernel >>>>> should be using the call_usermodehelper() to call up to rpc.gssd >>>>> to get the context, which means we could put this upcall noise >>>>> to bed... forever! :-) >>>> >>>> Ask Al Viro for his comments on whether the kernel should start >>>> gssd (either a daemon or a script). Hint: wear your kevlar underpants. >>> I was thinking gssd would become a the gssd-cmd command... Al does not >>> like the call_usermodehelper() interface? >> >> He doesn't have a problem with call_usermodehelper() in general. However, the kernel cannot guarantee security if it has to run a fixed command line. Go ask him to explain. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Have you tried Trond's approach yet? >>> Looking into it... But nothing is trivial in that code... >>> >>>> >>>>> I realize this is not going happen overnight, so I would still >>>>> like to propose my nfs4_secure_mounts bool patch as bridge >>>>> to the new call_usermodehelper() since its the cleanest >>>>> solution so far... >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> We have workarounds already that work on every kernel since 3.8. >>>> >>> The one that logs 5 to 20 lines (depending on thins are setup or not) >>> per mount? That does work in some environments but no all. ;-) >> >> When does running rpc.gssd not work? > > Oohh ooh.. Pick me. Pick me!! I can answer that one. > > Running rpc.gssd does not work if you are mounting a filesystem using the IP > address of the server and that IP address doesn't have a matching hostname > anywhere that can be found: > > In a newly creating minimal kvm install without rpc.gssd running, > mount 10.0.2.2:/home /mnt > > sleeps for 15 seconds then succeeds. > If I start rpc.gssd, then the same command takes forever. > > strace of rpc.gssd shows that it complains about not being able to resolve > the host name and "ERROR: failed to read service info". Then it keeps the > pipes open but never sends any message on them, so the kernel just keeps on > waiting. > > If I change "fail_keep_client" to "fail_destroy_client", then it closes the > pipe and we get the 15 second timeout back. > If I change NI_NAMEREQD to 0, then the mount completes instantly. (of course > that make serious compromise security so it was just for testing). > (Adding an entry to /etc/hosts also gives instant success). > > I'm hoping that someone who understands this code will suggest something > clever so I don't have to dig through all of it ;-) rpc.gssd is supposed to do a downcall with a zero-length window and an error message in any situation where it cannot establish a GSS context. Normally, I’d expect an EACCES for the above scenario. IOW: that’s a blatant rpc.gssd bug. One that will also affect you when you're doing NFSv3 and add ‘sec=krb5’ to the mount options. Cheers Trond-- 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
