Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: add a new test for cross quota realms renames

Jeff Layton
2020-11-23T15:39:50Z

On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 14:43 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 10:34 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> > > For the moment cross quota realms renames has been disabled in CephFS
> > > after a bug has been found while renaming files created and truncated.
> > > This allowed clients to easily circumvent quotas.
> > >
> > > Link: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/48203
> > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
> > > ---
> > > v2: implemented Eryu review comments:
> > > - Added _require_test_program "rename"
> > > - Use _fail instead of _fatal
> > >
> > >  tests/ceph/004 | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tests/ceph/004.out | 2 +
> > >  tests/ceph/group | 1 +
> > >  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100755 tests/ceph/004
> > >  create mode 100644 tests/ceph/004.out
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/ceph/004 b/tests/ceph/004
> > > new file mode 100755
> > > index 000000000000..53094d8dfadc
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tests/ceph/004
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
> > > +#! /bin/bash
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +# Copyright (c) 2020 SUSE Linux Products GmbH. All Rights Reserved.
> > > +#
> > > +# FS QA Test 004
> > > +#
> > > +# Tests a bug fix found in cephfs quotas handling. Here's a simplified testcase
> > > +# that *should* fail:
> > > +#
> > > +# mkdir files limit
> > > +# truncate files/file -s 10G
> > > +# setfattr limit -n ceph.quota.max_bytes -v 1000000
> > > +# mv files limit/
> > > +#
> > > +# Because we're creating a new file and truncating it, we have Fx caps and thus
> > > +# the truncate operation will be cached. This prevents the MDSs from updating
> > > +# the quota realms and thus the client will allow the above rename(2) to happen.
> > > +#
> >
> > Note that it can be difficult to predict which caps you get from the
> > MDS. It's not _required_ to pass out anything like Fx if it doesn't want
> > to, but in general, it does if it can.
> >
> > It's not a blocker for merging this test, but I wonder if we ought to
> > come up with some way to ensure that the client was given the caps we
> > expect when testing stuff like this.
> >
> > Maybe we ought to consider adding a new ceph.caps vxattr that shows the
> > caps we hold for a particular file? Then we could consult that when
> > doing a test like this to make sure we got what we expected.
>
> Sure, I can hack a patch for doing that and send it out for review.
> That's actually trivial, I believe.
>
> This test assumes the caps for the truncated file will be 'Fsxcrwb' but I
> didn't confirm with the MDS which conditions are actually required for
> this to happen. Also, I guess that if the test is executed with several
> clients, these caps may change pretty quickly (and maybe even with a
> single very slow client with a very short caps timeout).
>
> Obviously, ensuring the client has the caps we expect at the time we do
> the actual rename is racy and they can change in the meantime. Is it
> worth the trouble?

I think it's useful. Cap/mds lock handling is an area where we have
really poor visibility in cephfs.

a/ It's not always 100% clear what metadata is under which cap.
Sometimes it's really weird. For example, you need Fs to get the link
count on a directory -- Ls has no meaning there, which is not intuitive
at all.

b/ Subtle changes in the MDS or client can affect what caps are granted
or revoked in a given situation.

Having better visibility into the caps held by the client is potentially
very useful for troubleshooting _why_ certain tests might fail, and may
also help us catch subtle changes that prevent problems in the future.

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>