Re: [RFC PATCH v5 19/19] ceph: add fscrypt ioctls

Jeff Layton
2021-04-07T12:48:01Z

On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 19:04 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:27:21PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > I've spent a few hours already looking at the bug I reported before, and I
> > > > > can't really understand this code. What does it mean to increment
> > > > > ->i_shared_gen at this point?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason I'm asking is because it looks like the problem I'm seeing goes
> > > > > away if I remove this code. Here's what I'm doing/seeing:
> > > > >
> > > > > # mount ...
> > > > > # fscrypt unlock d
> > > > >
> > > > > -> 'd' dentry is eventually pruned at this point *if* ->i_shared_gen was
> > > > > incremented by the line above.
> > > > >
> > > > > # cat d/f
> > > > >
> > > > > -> when ceph_fill_inode() is executed, 'd' isn't *not* set as encrypted
> > > > > because both ci->i_xattrs.version and info->xattr_version are both
> > > > > set to 0.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Interesting. That sounds like it might be the bug right there. "d"
> > > > should clearly have a fscrypt context in its xattrs at that point. If
> > > > the MDS isn't passing that back, then that could be a problem.
> > > >
> > > > I had a concern about that when I was developing this, and I *thought*
> > > > Zheng had assured us that the MDS will always pass along the xattr blob
> > > > in a trace. Maybe that's not correct?
> > >
> > > Hmm, that's what I thought too. I was hoping not having to go look at the
> > > MDS, but seems like I'll have to :-)
> > >
> >
> > That'd be good, if possible.
> >
> > > > > cat: d/f: No such file or directory
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure anymore if the issue is on the client or on the MDS side.
> > > > > Before digging deeper, I wonder if this ring any bell. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, this is not something I've seen before.
> > > >
> > > > Dentries that live in a directory have a copy of the i_shared_gen of the
> > > > directory when they are instantiated. Bumping that value on a directory
> > > > should basically ensure that its child dentries end up invalidated,
> > > > which is what we want once we add the key to the directory. Once we add
> > > > a key, any old dentries in that directory are no longer valid.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I could certainly have missed some subtlety here.
> > >
> > > Great, thanks for clarifying. This should help me investigate a little
> > > bit more.
> > >
> > > [ And I'm also surprised you don't see this behaviour as it's very easy to
> > > reproduce. ]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It is odd... fwiw, I ran this for 5 mins or so and never saw a problem:
> >
> > $ while [ $? -eq 0 ]; do sudo umount /mnt/crypt; sudo mount /mnt/crypt; fscrypt unlock --key=/home/jlayton/fscrypt-keyfile /mnt/crypt/d; cat /mnt/crypt/d/f; done
> >
>
> TBH I only do this operation once and it almost always fails. The only
> difference I see is that I don't really use a keyfile, but a passphrase
> instead. Not sure if it makes any difference. Also, it may be worth
> adding a delay before the 'cat' to make sure the dentry is pruned.
>

No joy. I tried different delays between 1-5s and it didn't change
anything.

> > ...do I need some other operations in between? Also, the cluster in this
> > case is Pacific. It's possible this is a result of changes since then if
> > you're on a vstart cluster or something.
> >
> > $ sudo ./cephadm version
> > Using recent ceph image docker.io/ceph/ceph@sha256:9b04c0f15704c49591640a37c7adfd40ffad0a4b42fecb950c3407687cb4f29a
> > ceph version 16.2.0 (0c2054e95bcd9b30fdd908a79ac1d8bbc3394442) pacific (stable)
>
> I've re-compiled the cluster after hard-resetting it to commit
> 6a19e303187c which you mentioned in a previous email in this thread. But
> the result was the same.
>
> Anyway, using a vstart cluster is also a huge difference I guess. I'll
> keep debugging. Thanks!
>

I may try to set one up today to see if I can reproduce it. Thanks for
the testing help so far!

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>