On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:43:59PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> fs/nfsd/xdr4.h | 13 +++++++
>> 3 files changed, 221 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>> index dadb3bf..ed6b9f2 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
>> #include <linux/file.h>
>> #include <linux/falloc.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <linux/sunrpc/addr.h>
>>
>> #include "idmap.h"
>> #include "cache.h"
>> @@ -1087,6 +1088,82 @@ static int fill_in_write_vector(struct kvec *vec, struct nfsd4_write *write)
>> }
>>
>> static __be32
>> +nfsd4_set_src_nl4_netaddr(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nl4_servers *svrs)
>> +{
>> + const struct sockaddr *addr = (struct sockaddr *)&rqstp->rq_daddr;
>> + const struct sockaddr_in *sin = (const struct sockaddr_in *)addr;
>> + const struct sockaddr_in6 *sin6 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)addr;
>> + int uaddr_len = rqstp->rq_daddrlen + 4 + 1; /* port (4) and '\0' (1) */
>> + struct nfs42_netaddr *naddr;
>> + size_t ret;
>> + unsigned short port;
>> +
>> + /* freed in nfsd4_encode_copy_notify */
>> + svrs->nl_svr = kmalloc_array(svrs->nl_nsvr, sizeof(struct nl4_server),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (svrs->nl_svr == NULL)
>> + return nfserrno(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> + svrs->nl_svr->nl4_type = NL4_NETADDR;
>> + naddr = &svrs->nl_svr->u.nl4_addr;
>> +
>> + switch (addr->sa_family) {
>> + case AF_INET:
>> + port = ntohs(sin->sin_port);
>> + sprintf(naddr->na_netid, "tcp");
>> + naddr->na_netid_len = 3;
>> + break;
>> + case AF_INET6:
>> + port = ntohs(sin6->sin6_port);
>> + sprintf(naddr->na_netid, "tcp6");
>> + naddr->na_netid_len = 4;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + dprintk("NFSD nfsd4_set_notify_src: unknown address type: %d",
>> + addr->sa_family);
>> + kfree(svrs->nl_svr);
>> + return nfserrno(-EINVAL);
>> + }
>> + ret = rpc_ntop(addr, naddr->na_uaddr, sizeof(naddr->na_uaddr));
>> + snprintf(naddr->na_uaddr + ret, uaddr_len, ".%u.%u",
>> + port >> 8, port & 255);
>> + naddr->na_uaddr_len = strlen(naddr->na_uaddr);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static __be32
>> +nfsd4_copy_notify(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>> + struct nfsd4_copy_notify *cn)
>> +{
>> + __be32 status;
>> + struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(SVC_NET(rqstp), nfsd_net_id);
>> +
>> + status = nfs4_preprocess_stateid_op(rqstp, cstate, &cstate->current_fh,
>> + &cn->cpn_src_stateid, RD_STATE, NULL,
>> + NULL);
>> + if (status)
>> + return status;
>> +
>> + cn->cpn_sec = nn->nfsd4_lease;
>> + cn->cpn_nsec = 0;
>> +
>> +
>> + /** XXX Save cpn_src_statid, cpn_src, and any other returned source
>> + * server addresses on which the source server is williing to accept
>> + * connections from the destination e.g. what is returned in cpn_src,
>> + * to verify READ from dest server.
>> + */
>
> Either we should fix the stuff mentioned in the comment or figure out
> why it's not necessary.
Sorry yes this comment should be removed from this patch. Another patch (29)
removes it.
> I guess I don't see what the value would be of verifying the IP address.
Correct no value is there. Also the READ request can come from a different IP
then what the client sends in COPY_NOTIFY. Destination server can be
multi-homed and share a high speed link with the source server and not with
the client.
> Our choice of IP address to return here is a little arbitrary anyway.
What the source server is returning shouldn't be arbitrary it should return
all the IPs (networks) that it might want to receive requests from the
destination
server.
> And I assume the eventualy READ calls are going to be verified with all
> the usual export and file permission checks.
>
> If we don't save the cna_src_stateid, then I guess that means the COPY
> might still succeed after the original OPEN/LOCK stateid is no longer
> valid? I can't decide if that will cause problems in practice or not.
No we store the stateid (it's a part of the nfsd4_copy_notify structure and
gets saved from nfs4_preprocess_stateid_op. Then in patch 29 we generate
the unique stateid to be used for the copy itself and its validity is
tied to the
open/lock stateid and also it has to start to be used within the configured
lease time (nfsd_net->nfsd4_lease value).
>
>> static __be32
>> +nfsd42_encode_nl4_server(struct nfsd4_compoundres *resp, struct nl4_server *ns)
>> +{
>> + struct xdr_stream *xdr = &resp->xdr;
>> + struct nfs42_netaddr *addr;
>> + __be32 *p;
>> +
>> + p = xdr_reserve_space(xdr, 4);
>> + *p++ = cpu_to_be32(ns->nl4_type);
>> +
>> + switch (ns->nl4_type) {
>> + case NL4_NAME:
>> + case NL4_URL:
>> + p = xdr_reserve_space(xdr, 4 /* url or name len */ +
>> + (XDR_QUADLEN(ns->u.nl4_str_sz) * 4));
>> + if (!p)
>> + return nfserr_resource;
>> + *p++ = cpu_to_be32(ns->u.nl4_str_sz);
>> + p = xdr_encode_opaque_fixed(p, ns->u.nl4_str, ns->u.nl4_str_sz);
>> + break;
>
> This code will never be used as far as I can tell. We could
> BUG_ON(nl4_type != NL4_NETADDR) (or even just remove nl4_type).
Sure.
>
> --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
--
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
