[PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[Tigran Mkrtchyan]

the nfs4_map_errors function converts NFS specific errors to userland
errors. However, it ignores NFS4ERR_PERM and EPERM, which then get
mapped to EIO.

Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
---
 fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index d3665390c4cb..795205fe4f30 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -171,12 +171,14 @@ static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
 	case -NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER:
 	case -NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT:
 		return -EREMOTEIO;
+	case -NFS4ERR_PERM:
 	case -NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC:
 	case -NFS4ERR_WRONG_CRED:
 		return -EPERM;
 	case -NFS4ERR_BADOWNER:
 	case -NFS4ERR_BADNAME:
 		return -EINVAL;
+	case -NFS4ERR_ACCESS:
 	case -NFS4ERR_SHARE_DENIED:
 		return -EACCES;
 	case -NFS4ERR_MINOR_VERS_MISMATCH:
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[Trond Myklebust]

Hi Tigran,

On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 16:49 +0200, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote:
> the nfs4_map_errors function converts NFS specific errors to userland
> errors. However, it ignores NFS4ERR_PERM and EPERM, which then get
> mapped to EIO.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
> ---
>  fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index d3665390c4cb..795205fe4f30 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -171,12 +171,14 @@ static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
>         case -NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER:
>         case -NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT:
>                 return -EREMOTEIO;
> +       case -NFS4ERR_PERM:
>         case -NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC:
>         case -NFS4ERR_WRONG_CRED:
>                 return -EPERM;
>         case -NFS4ERR_BADOWNER:
>         case -NFS4ERR_BADNAME:
>                 return -EINVAL;
> +       case -NFS4ERR_ACCESS:
>         case -NFS4ERR_SHARE_DENIED:
>                 return -EACCES;
>         case -NFS4ERR_MINOR_VERS_MISMATCH:

Hmm... Aren't both these cases covered by the exception at the top of
the function?

static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
{
        if (err >= -1000)
                return err;

As I read it, that should mean that err = -NFS4ERR_ACCESS (= -13) and
err = -NFS4ERR_PERM (= -1) will get returned verbatim.

Are you seeing these NFS4ERR_ACCESS and NFS4ERR_PERM cases hitting the
default: dprintk() when you turn it on?

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com

Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[Trond Myklebust]

On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 19:42 +0200, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote:
> Hi Trond,
> 
> I will check and let you know. What we see is EACCESS on layoutget
> reported as EIO to the applications
> 

If this is for a write, then that might just be
nfs_mapping_set_error(). In newer kernels, it tries to avoid sending
errors that are unexpected for strictly POSIX applications.

Cheers
  Trond

> Best regards,
> Tigran 
> 
> 
> On June 8, 2023 5:33:16 PM GMT+02:00, Trond Myklebust
> <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
> > Hi Tigran,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 16:49 +0200, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote:
> > > the nfs4_map_errors function converts NFS specific errors to
> > > userland
> > > errors. However, it ignores NFS4ERR_PERM and EPERM, which then
> > > get
> > > mapped to EIO.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan
> > > <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > > index d3665390c4cb..795205fe4f30 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > > @@ -171,12 +171,14 @@ static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER:
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT:
> > >                 return -EREMOTEIO;
> > > +       case -NFS4ERR_PERM:
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC:
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_WRONG_CRED:
> > >                 return -EPERM;
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_BADOWNER:
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_BADNAME:
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > +       case -NFS4ERR_ACCESS:
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_SHARE_DENIED:
> > >                 return -EACCES;
> > >         case -NFS4ERR_MINOR_VERS_MISMATCH:
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm... Aren't both these cases covered by the exception at the top
> > of
> > the function?
> > 
> > static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
> > {
> >         if (err >= -1000)
> >                 return err;
> > 
> > As I read it, that should mean that err = -NFS4ERR_ACCESS (= -13)
> > and
> > err = -NFS4ERR_PERM (= -1) will get returned verbatim.
> > 
> > Are you seeing these NFS4ERR_ACCESS and NFS4ERR_PERM cases hitting
> > the
> > default: dprintk() when you turn it on?
> > 

-- 
Trond Myklebust 
CTO, Hammerspace Inc 
1900 S Norfolk St, Suite 350 - #45 
San Mateo, CA 94403 
​
www.hammerspace.com

Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[Mkrtchyan, Tigran]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3120 bytes --]


Hi Trond,

Obviously, the patch is incorrect. The behavior of the upstream kernel and
RHEL kernels are different.

Sorry for the noise,
  Tigran.


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
> To: anna@kernel.org, "Tigran Mkrtchyan" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
> Cc: "linux-nfs" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 June, 2023 19:53:07
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

> On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 19:42 +0200, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote:
>> Hi Trond,
>> 
>> I will check and let you know. What we see is EACCESS on layoutget
>> reported as EIO to the applications
>> 
> 
> If this is for a write, then that might just be
> nfs_mapping_set_error(). In newer kernels, it tries to avoid sending
> errors that are unexpected for strictly POSIX applications.
> 
> Cheers
>  Trond
> 
>> Best regards,
>> Tigran
>> 
>> 
>> On June 8, 2023 5:33:16 PM GMT+02:00, Trond Myklebust
>> <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Tigran,
>> > 
>> > On Thu, 2023-06-08 at 16:49 +0200, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote:
>> > > the nfs4_map_errors function converts NFS specific errors to
>> > > userland
>> > > errors. However, it ignores NFS4ERR_PERM and EPERM, which then
>> > > get
>> > > mapped to EIO.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan
>> > > <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++
>> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> > > 
>> > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>> > > index d3665390c4cb..795205fe4f30 100644
>> > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>> > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>> > > @@ -171,12 +171,14 @@ static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER:
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_RECALLCONFLICT:
>> > >                 return -EREMOTEIO;
>> > > +       case -NFS4ERR_PERM:
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_WRONGSEC:
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_WRONG_CRED:
>> > >                 return -EPERM;
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_BADOWNER:
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_BADNAME:
>> > >                 return -EINVAL;
>> > > +       case -NFS4ERR_ACCESS:
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_SHARE_DENIED:
>> > >                 return -EACCES;
>> > >         case -NFS4ERR_MINOR_VERS_MISMATCH:
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > Hmm... Aren't both these cases covered by the exception at the top
>> > of
>> > the function?
>> > 
>> > static int nfs4_map_errors(int err)
>> > {
>> >         if (err >= -1000)
>> >                 return err;
>> > 
>> > As I read it, that should mean that err = -NFS4ERR_ACCESS (= -13)
>> > and
>> > err = -NFS4ERR_PERM (= -1) will get returned verbatim.
>> > 
>> > Are you seeing these NFS4ERR_ACCESS and NFS4ERR_PERM cases hitting
>> > the
>> > default: dprintk() when you turn it on?
>> > 
> 
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> CTO, Hammerspace Inc
> 1900 S Norfolk St, Suite 350 - #45
> San Mateo, CA 94403
> 
> www.hammerspace.com

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2208 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[Benjamin Coddington]

On 9 Jun 2023, at 9:30, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:

> Hi Trond,
>
> Obviously, the patch is incorrect. The behavior of the upstream kernel and
> RHEL kernels are different.

RHEL-9 should be ok here.

There's a few things we need to be fixing for RHEL-8.9.  This is one of them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213828

Ben

Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

[Mkrtchyan, Tigran]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

Thanks, Ben!

Tigran.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benjamin Coddington" <bcodding@redhat.com>
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
> Cc: "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@hammerspace.com>, "anna" <anna@kernel.org>, "linux-nfs" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Friday, 9 June, 2023 16:00:34
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs4: don't map EACCESS and EPERM to EIO

> On 9 Jun 2023, at 9:30, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> 
>> Hi Trond,
>>
>> Obviously, the patch is incorrect. The behavior of the upstream kernel and
>> RHEL kernels are different.
> 
> RHEL-9 should be ok here.
> 
> There's a few things we need to be fixing for RHEL-8.9.  This is one of them.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213828
> 
> Ben

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2208 bytes --]