From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@oracle.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nfsd: don't hand out write delegations on O_WRONLY opens
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:25:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00C10519-1916-4ACF-B95D-064CDC130DC4@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c9370f6fde62205356f4c864891a3c35ef811877.camel@kernel.org>
> On Aug 2, 2023, at 2:15 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2023-08-02 at 09:29 -0700, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>> On 8/1/23 6:33 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> I noticed that xfstests generic/001 was failing against linux-next nfsd.
>>>
>>> The client would request a OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE open, and the server
>>> would hand out a write delegation. The client would then try to use that
>>> write delegation as the source stateid in a COPY
>>
>> not sure why the client opens the source file of a COPY operation with
>> OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE?
>>
>
> It doesn't. The original open is to write the data for the file being
> copied. It then opens the file again for READ, but since it has a write
> delegation, it doesn't need to talk to the server at all -- it can just
> use that stateid for later operations.
>
>>> or CLONE operation, and
>>> the server would respond with NFS4ERR_STALE.
>>
>> If the server does not allow client to use write delegation for the
>> READ, should the correct error return be NFS4ERR_OPENMODE?
>>
>
> The server must allow the client to use a write delegation for read
> operations. It's required by the spec, AFAIU.
>
> The error in this case was just bogus. The vfs copy routine would return
> -EBADF since the file didn't have FMODE_READ, and the nfs server would
> translate that into NFS4ERR_STALE.
>
> Probably there is a better v4 error code that we could translate EBADF
> to, but with this patch it shouldn't be a problem any longer.
>
>>>
>>> The problem is that the struct file associated with the delegation does
>>> not necessarily have read permissions. It's handing out a write
>>> delegation on what is effectively an O_WRONLY open. RFC 8881 states:
>>>
>>> "An OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation allows the client to handle, on its
>>> own, all opens."
>>>
>>> Given that the client didn't request any read permissions, and that nfsd
>>> didn't check for any, it seems wrong to give out a write delegation.
>>>
>>> Only hand out a write delegation if we have a O_RDWR descriptor
>>> available. If it fails to find an appropriate write descriptor, go
>>> ahead and try for a read delegation if NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ was
>>> requested.
>>>
>>> This fixes xfstest generic/001.
>>>
>>> Closes: https://bugzilla.linux-nfs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Rework the logic when finding struct file for the delegation. The
>>> earlier patch might still have attached a O_WRONLY file to the deleg
>>> in some cases, and could still have handed out a write delegation on
>>> an O_WRONLY OPEN request in some cases.
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> index ef7118ebee00..e79d82fd05e7 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> @@ -5449,7 +5449,7 @@ nfs4_set_delegation(struct nfsd4_open *open, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp,
>>> struct nfs4_file *fp = stp->st_stid.sc_file;
>>> struct nfs4_clnt_odstate *odstate = stp->st_clnt_odstate;
>>> struct nfs4_delegation *dp;
>>> - struct nfsd_file *nf;
>>> + struct nfsd_file *nf = NULL;
>>> struct file_lock *fl;
>>> u32 dl_type;
>>>
>>> @@ -5461,21 +5461,28 @@ nfs4_set_delegation(struct nfsd4_open *open, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp,
>>> if (fp->fi_had_conflict)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>>>
>>> - if (open->op_share_access & NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE) {
>>> - nf = find_writeable_file(fp);
>>> + /*
>>> + * Try for a write delegation first. We need an O_RDWR file
>>> + * since a write delegation allows the client to perform any open
>>> + * from its cache.
Since you're sending a v3... can you cite the section of RFC 8881
that specifies this "all open" case in this commment? I'm sure we're
all going to forget this requirement.
>>> + */
>>> + if ((open->op_share_access & NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH) == NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH) {
>>> + nf = nfsd_file_get(fp->fi_fds[O_RDWR]);
>>> dl_type = NFS4_OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE;
>>> - } else {
>>
>> Does this mean OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE do not get a write delegation?
>> It does not seem right.
>>
>> -Dai
>>
>
> Why? Per RFC 8881:
>
> "An OPEN_DELEGATE_WRITE delegation allows the client to handle, on its
> own, all opens."
>
> All opens. That includes read opens.
>
> An OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE open will succeed on a file to which the
> user has no read permissions. Therefore, we can't grant a write
> delegation since can't guarantee that the user is allowed to do that.
>
>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * If the file is being opened O_RDONLY or we couldn't get a O_RDWR
>>> + * file for some reason, then try for a read deleg instead.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!nf && (open->op_share_access & NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ)) {
>>> nf = find_readable_file(fp);
>>> dl_type = NFS4_OPEN_DELEGATE_READ;
>>> }
>>> - if (!nf) {
>>> - /*
>>> - * We probably could attempt another open and get a read
>>> - * delegation, but for now, don't bother until the
>>> - * client actually sends us one.
>>> - */
>>> +
>>> + if (!nf)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>>> - }
>>> +
>>> spin_lock(&state_lock);
>>> spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
>>> if (nfs4_delegation_exists(clp, fp))
>>>
>>> ---
>>> base-commit: a734662572708cf062e974f659ae50c24fc1ad17
>>> change-id: 20230731-wdeleg-bbdb6b25a3c6
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
--
Chuck Lever
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-02 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-01 13:33 [PATCH v2] nfsd: don't hand out write delegations on O_WRONLY opens Jeff Layton
2023-08-01 22:26 ` NeilBrown
2023-08-01 22:51 ` Chuck Lever
2023-08-02 0:07 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-02 16:29 ` dai.ngo
2023-08-02 18:15 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-02 18:25 ` Chuck Lever III [this message]
2023-08-02 20:15 ` dai.ngo
2023-08-02 20:48 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-02 20:57 ` Chuck Lever III
2023-08-02 21:13 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-02 21:26 ` dai.ngo
2023-08-02 21:22 ` dai.ngo
2023-08-02 21:32 ` dai.ngo
2023-08-02 21:52 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <3dad0420-11b5-6e6a-a1ae-72970fbfdb34@oracle.com>
2023-08-03 11:27 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-03 17:01 ` dai.ngo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=00C10519-1916-4ACF-B95D-064CDC130DC4@oracle.com \
--to=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=dai.ngo@oracle.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=kolga@netapp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox