On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:44:32PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> How about changing it to be more restrictive by checking within the
> while loop that
> if it's a PUTFH and it's followed by the SAVE_FH+PUTFH+COPY only
> then set the NO_VERIFY_FH.
I agree that the only op that could reasonably follow the first PUTFH of
a foreign filehandle is a SAVEFH. But once we've saved the foreign
filehandle, the client could in theory do all sorts of stuff, as you
say:
> I guess we can allow some other operations between the 2nd PUTFH and
> COPY because the 2nd filehandle will be validated and must be valid to
> continue processing the compound.
PUTHF+SAVEFH+PUTFH+GETATTR+COPY might be useful to get pre-copy
attributes of the target file, for example?
I'd rather not restrict this if we don't need to.
We could do something like:
- if this op is PUTFH
- if the following is not SAVEFH, stop and verify the
filehandle.
- otherwise, skip to the next operation that uses a saved
filehandle. The possibilities are:
- RENAME, LINK, RESTOREFH, CLONE: stop and verify the
filehandle.
- COPY: if it's a local copy, stop and verify the
filehandle. Otherwise, allow the PUTFH to succeed and
delay verification.
> Somewhere else you were talking about how a "foreign" file handle can
> mean something to the server. If that's the case and we do allow for
> operations between putfh, savefh, putfh then we'll get into trouble
> that I can't think we can get out of.
>
> If it's a inter copy and the source file handle means something to the
> server I can think of the following scenario: the state won't be
> flagged IS_STALE then the filehandle would go thru the checks you
> listed below and can (unintentionally) result in an error (eg.,
> err_moved?).
I don't see any problem with just leaving those checks in. If the
current filehandle is not validated, then there's already a
current_fh->fh_dentry check that skips the ABSENT_FH check, for example.
> This should be changed to
> if (HAS_CSTATE_FLAG(cstate, IS_STALE_FH) && op->opnum == OP_SAVEFH)
> then we need to skip the checks for savefh as it has no valid file handle.
>
> Does that address your concern?
I think you only need to skip the nofilehandle check in this case, not
the other stuff.
I don't think the IS_STALE_FH flag is needed at all.
> >> if (!current_fh->fh_dentry) {
> >> if (!(opdesc->op_flags & ALLOWED_WITHOUT_FH)) {
> >> op->status = nfserr_nofilehandle;
> >> @@ -1844,6 +1880,7 @@ static void svcxdr_init_encode(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> >>
> >> if (opdesc->op_get_currentstateid)
> >> opdesc->op_get_currentstateid(cstate, &op->u);
> >> +call_op:
> >> op->status = opdesc->op_func(rqstp, cstate, &op->u);
> >>
> >> /* Only from SEQUENCE */
> >> @@ -1862,6 +1899,14 @@ static void svcxdr_init_encode(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> >> if (need_wrongsec_check(rqstp))
> >> op->status = check_nfsd_access(current_fh->fh_export, rqstp);
> >> }
> >> + /* Only from intra COPY */
> >> + if (cstate->status == nfserr_copy_stalefh) {
> >> + dprintk("%s NFS4.2 intra COPY stale src filehandle\n",
> >> + __func__);
> >> + status = nfserr_stale;
> >> + nfsd4_adjust_encode(resp);
> >
> > Are you sure it's safe just to throw away any operations since that
> > stale PUTFH? What if some of those operations had side effects?
>
> If COPY comes in PUTFH,SAVEFH, PUTFH,COPY compound then
> I think it's safe?
The spec says "If a server supports the inter-server copy feature, a
PUTFH followed by a SAVEFH MUST NOT return NFS4ERR_STALE for either
operation. These restrictions do not pose substantial difficulties for
servers. CURRENT_FH and SAVED_FH may be validated in the context of the
operation referencing them and an NFS4ERR_STALE error returned for an
invalid filehandle at that point."
So we're supposed to return NFS4ERR_STALE on the COPY, not the PUTFH.
So there's no need for this backtracking.
--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
