Re: Data Corruption bug with Samba's vfs_iouring and Linux 5.6.7/5.7rc3

Jeremy Allison
2020-05-06T17:13:14Z

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 10:03:44AM -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
>
> Well we pay attention to the amount of data returned
> and only increment the next read request by the amount
> actually returned.
>
> I'm amazed that the Windows client doesn't seem to
> check this !
>
> > The attached test against liburing (git://git.kernel.dk/liburing) should
> > be able to demonstrate the problem. It can also be found in
> > https://github.com/metze-samba/liburing/tree/implicit-rwf-nowaithttps://github.com/metze-samba/liburing/commit/eb06dcfde747e46bd08bedf9def2e6cb536c39e3
> >
> >
> > I added the sqe->rw_flags = RWF_NOWAIT; line in order to demonstrate it
> > against the Ubuntu 5.3 and 5.4 kernels. They both seem to have the bug.
> >
> > Can someone run the unmodified test/implicit-rwf_nowait against
> > a newer kernel?
>
> Aha. I wondered about the short read issue when this
> was first reported but I could never catch it in the
> act.
>
> If the Windows client doesn't check and the kernel
> returns short reads I guess we'll have to add logic
> similar to tstream_readv_send()/tstream_writev_send()
> that ensure all bytes requested/send actually go through
> the interface and from/into the kernel unless a read
> returns 0 (EOF) or a write returns an error.
>
> What a pain though :-(. SMB2+ server implementors
> really need to take note that Windows clients will corrupt
> files if they get a short read/write return.
>
> The fact that early kernels don't return short
> reads on io_uring but later kernels do makes it
> even worse :-(.
>
> There's even an SMB2 protocol field in SMB2_READ:
>
> "MinimumCount (4 bytes): The minimum number of bytes to be read for this operation to be
> successful. If fewer than the minimum number of bytes are read by the server, the server
> MUST return an error rather than the bytes read."
>
> We correctly return EOF if the amount read from
> the kernel is less than SMB2_READ.MinimumCount
> so I'm guessing they're not using it or looking
> at it (or setting it to zero).
>
> MinimumCount is supposed to allow the client to cope with
> this. Anoop, do you have wireshark traces so we can
> see what the Windows clients are setting here ?

Just did a quick check myself and Windows10 clients
are setting Minimumcount==0 on read, so any amount
should be good here.