> On May 6, 2016, at 12:13 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:23:40AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> >>> On May 5, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:01:58PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>> After some IRC discussion with Bruce, we think the answer >>>> is "this is not supported in the current Linux NFS server." >>>> >>>> The server does not have a way to determine which service >>>> principal to use for NFSv4.0 callback operations. It picks >>>> (probably) the first nfs/ service principal in the server's >>>> keytab for all callback operations. >>>> >>>> Thus if a Linux NFS server has a keytab, clients can mount >>>> it with NFSv4.0 (and any security flavor) only on the i/f >>>> whose hostname matches the name of the nfs/ service >>>> principal in that server's keytab. >>> >>> One correction: the mount should still work correctly. The server just >>> won't grant any delegations to the client. >> >> Unfortunately this is not the case. > > Ugh, OK, that's worse than I thought. I guess you can work around it on > the server side with "echo 0 >/proc/sys/fs/leases-enable". Google can find this e-mail thread, but would like me to open a bug report on bugzilla.linux-nfs.org as well, Bruce? >> The CB_NULLs the server uses to validate the backchannel >> connection work, and a GSS context is correctly established. >> The server starts to hand out delegations. >> >> Operation continues until the server tries to recall a >> delegation. The CB_COMPOUND / CB_RECALL fails for the >> reasons described above. >> >> Operation stalls for tens of seconds while the server >> waits for the client to respond to the CB_RECALL. >> Requests against the file whose delegation is being >> recalled get NFS4ERR_DELAY. >> >> After some period, the client happens to perform a RENEW, >> and the server reports NFS4ERR_CB_PATH_DOWN. >> >> The client returns its delegations and performs another >> SETCLIENTID. > > I wonder why the client does that? Returning the delegations would seem > sufficient. > > The other thing the client could do to help would be to at least > recognize that the principal it gets the NULL call from isn't among the > principals its going to accept any real callback for. I think that > would be easy enough. > > But maybe neither change is justifiable except as a workaround for a > broken server. > >> The server destroys the backchannel GSS >> context and closes the backchannel connection. >> >> The server creates a new backchannel connection and >> establishes a fresh GSS context for the backchannel. >> Operation continues until the server tries to recall >> another delegation. >> >> So, operation is correct and no data corruption occurs. >> But the mount is not usable in any production sense >> because operation can stall for tens of seconds whenever >> a delegation recall is attempted. Depending on the >> workload, that can be frequent, or it may not be >> noticeable. >> >> This is the behavior when the client discards callback >> operations that are not properly authenticated. If the >> client behavior is changed to respond with RPCAUTH_BADCRED, >> the server can recognize that the client received the >> request and responded. >> >> The server will have to change its behavior in this case. >> Today it continues to attempt to use the backchannel, and >> each attempt fails. Somehow it needs to mark that client >> so that it stops trying to issue CB operations to it. > > It *should* be marking the callback path down as soon as it knows > there's a problem (look for nfsd4_mark_cb_down() calls), but in the case > of an unresponsive client that's always going to take a while. > >>>> In other words, if the server has a keytab with the >>>> principals: >>>> >>>> nfs/server-a >>>> nfs/server-b >>>> nfs/server-c >>>> >>>> NFSv4.0 will operate correctly only when mounting the >>>> server via server-a: . >>>> >>>> Clients that do not have a keytab should be able to mount >>>> with NFSv4.0 via the other interfaces. This is because >>>> they will not try to negotiate krb5i for lease management, >>>> and the server will not attempt to use krb5i for callback >>>> operations. >>>> >>>> Bruce feels this is a corner case, would be difficult to >>>> address, and is adequately worked around by using NFSv3 >>>> or NFSv4.1 or higher. So currently this is a WONTFIX. >>> >>> Right, so if there's somebody really need delegations in the multi-homed >>> NFSv4.0/krb5 case, they're welcomed to look into it--I can't say I'd >>> turn down good patches (maybe it's not even that hard--may depend on >>> whether the gss-proxy protocol does what we need?). But it doesn't seem >>> like a priority. >> >> During happy hour, Marcus claimed it should be straightforward >> to fix. > > OK. > > --b. -- Chuck Lever -- 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
