From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] nfs4: fix channel attribute sanity-checks
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:19:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101002191901.GA18079@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101002090444.GB17395@merit.edu>
From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
The sanity checks here are incorrect; in the worst case they allow
values that crash the client.
They're also over-reliant on the preprocessor.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 05:04:44AM -0400, Jim Rees wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> + * Our requested max_ops is the minimum we need; we're not
> + * prepared to break up compounds into smaller pieces than that.
> + * So, not point even trying to continue if the server won't
> + * cooperate:
>
> "not" should be "no".
Whoops, fixed.
> Also seems odd that max_ops is actually the minimum, but I guess the code is
> clear enough.
Yeah. The naming's a little odd, at least; however this field was
imagined being used when the spec was written, I don't think clients are
likely to dynamically adjust their compounds somehow to optimize for the
max_ops that the server gives them. The linux client behavior seems
more likely: calculate the length of the longest compound the client
needs to be able to send, send that as max_ops, error out if the server
won't give at least much, and ignore the server if it grants more....
--b.
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 089da5b..fdc79e5 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -4914,49 +4914,56 @@ static void nfs4_init_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args)
args->bc_attrs.max_reqs);
}
-static int _verify_channel_attr(char *chan, char *attr_name, u32 sent, u32 rcvd)
+static int nfs4_verify_fore_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args, struct nfs4_session *session)
{
- if (rcvd <= sent)
- return 0;
- printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Session INVALID: %s channel %s increased. "
- "sent=%u rcvd=%u\n", __func__, chan, attr_name, sent, rcvd);
- return -EINVAL;
+ struct nfs4_channel_attrs *sent = &args->fc_attrs;
+ struct nfs4_channel_attrs *rcvd = &session->fc_attrs;
+
+ if (rcvd->headerpadsz > sent->headerpadsz)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (rcvd->max_resp_sz > sent->max_resp_sz)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ /*
+ * Our requested max_ops is the minimum we need; we're not
+ * prepared to break up compounds into smaller pieces than that.
+ * So, no point even trying to continue if the server won't
+ * cooperate:
+ */
+ if (rcvd->max_ops < sent->max_ops)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (rcvd->max_reqs == 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ return 0;
}
-#define _verify_fore_channel_attr(_name_) \
- _verify_channel_attr("fore", #_name_, \
- args->fc_attrs._name_, \
- session->fc_attrs._name_)
+static int nfs4_verify_back_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args, struct nfs4_session *session)
+{
+ struct nfs4_channel_attrs *sent = &args->bc_attrs;
+ struct nfs4_channel_attrs *rcvd = &session->bc_attrs;
-#define _verify_back_channel_attr(_name_) \
- _verify_channel_attr("back", #_name_, \
- args->bc_attrs._name_, \
- session->bc_attrs._name_)
+ if (rcvd->max_rqst_sz > sent->max_rqst_sz)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (rcvd->max_resp_sz < sent->max_resp_sz)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (rcvd->max_resp_sz_cached > sent->max_resp_sz_cached)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ /* These would render the backchannel useless: */
+ if (rcvd->max_ops == 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (rcvd->max_reqs == 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ return 0;
+}
-/*
- * The server is not allowed to increase the fore channel header pad size,
- * maximum response size, or maximum number of operations.
- *
- * The back channel attributes are only negotiatied down: We send what the
- * (back channel) server insists upon.
- */
static int nfs4_verify_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args,
struct nfs4_session *session)
{
- int ret = 0;
-
- ret |= _verify_fore_channel_attr(headerpadsz);
- ret |= _verify_fore_channel_attr(max_resp_sz);
- ret |= _verify_fore_channel_attr(max_ops);
-
- ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(headerpadsz);
- ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(max_rqst_sz);
- ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(max_resp_sz);
- ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(max_resp_sz_cached);
- ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(max_ops);
- ret |= _verify_back_channel_attr(max_reqs);
+ int ret;
- return ret;
+ ret = nfs4_verify_fore_channel_attrs(args, session);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ return nfs4_verify_back_channel_attrs(args, session);
}
static int _nfs4_proc_create_session(struct nfs_client *clp)
--
1.7.0.4
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-02 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-25 16:42 [PATCH] nfs4: allow server to change forechannel max_ops J. Bruce Fields
2010-05-25 16:57 ` Trond Myklebust
[not found] ` <1274806624.11283.10.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org>
2010-05-25 18:32 ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-09-07 22:32 ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-10-02 5:19 ` [PATCH] nfs4: fix channel attribute sanity-checks J. Bruce Fields
2010-10-02 9:04 ` Jim Rees
2010-10-02 19:19 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
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=20101002191901.GA18079@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=andros@netapp.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rees@umich.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).