* [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services
@ 2009-08-04 9:27 Wei Yongjun
2009-08-25 21:40 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-04 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J. Bruce Fields, Neil Brown; +Cc: linux-nfs, nfsv4
When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS
include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY
and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED
in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by
svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct
one. So this patch fixed it.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
static int
svcauth_gss_accept(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, __be32 *authp)
{
switch (gc->gc_svc) {
case RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE:
...
case RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY:
...
case RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY:
...
default:
goto auth_err; <-- reply with AUTH_BADCRED
}
...
}
static int
svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
{
...
switch (gc->gc_svc) {
case RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE:
break;
case RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY:
...
case RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY:
...
default:
goto out_err; <--- will drop it
}
...
}
---
net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
index 2278a50..6dce327 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
@@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
goto out_err;
break;
default:
- goto out_err;
+ goto out;
}
out:
--
1.6.2.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-04 9:27 [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-25 21:40 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-26 0:34 ` Wei Yongjun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-25 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: Neil Brown, linux-nfs, nfsv4 On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS > include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY > and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED > in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by > svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct > one. So this patch fixed it. Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > index 2278a50..6dce327 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > @@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp) > goto out_err; > break; > default: > - goto out_err; > + goto out; > } > > out: The goto seems redundant. How about just leaving out the default case and providing a comment? (See below.) --b. commit ab3654a05aaf367b23bbb3d9229ff72a11999719 Author: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue Aug 4 17:27:52 2009 +0800 svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unknown service When an RPC message is received with RPCSEC_GSS with an unknown service (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY, or RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), svcauth_gss_accept() returns AUTH_BADCRED, but svcauth_gss_release() subsequently drops the response entirely, discarding the error. Fix that so the AUTH_BADCRED error is returned to the client. Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c index 2e6a148..f6c51e5 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c @@ -1374,8 +1374,10 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp) if (stat) goto out_err; break; - default: - goto out_err; + /* + * For any other gc_svc value, svcauth_gss_accept() already set + * the auth_error appropriately; just fall through: + */ } out: ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-25 21:40 ` J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-26 0:34 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-08-26 20:57 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-26 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: Neil Brown, linux-nfs, nfsv4 J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > >> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS >> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY >> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED >> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by >> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct >> one. So this patch fixed it. >> > > Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) > I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 > >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c >> index 2278a50..6dce327 100644 >> --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c >> @@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp) >> goto out_err; >> break; >> default: >> - goto out_err; >> + goto out; >> } >> >> out: >> > > The goto seems redundant. How about just leaving out the default case > and providing a comment? (See below.) > > --b. > > commit ab3654a05aaf367b23bbb3d9229ff72a11999719 > Author: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> > Date: Tue Aug 4 17:27:52 2009 +0800 > > svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unknown service > > When an RPC message is received with RPCSEC_GSS with an unknown service > (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY, or RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), > svcauth_gss_accept() returns AUTH_BADCRED, but svcauth_gss_release() > subsequently drops the response entirely, discarding the error. > > Fix that so the AUTH_BADCRED error is returned to the client. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > index 2e6a148..f6c51e5 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > @@ -1374,8 +1374,10 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp) > if (stat) > goto out_err; > break; > - default: > - goto out_err; > + /* > + * For any other gc_svc value, svcauth_gss_accept() already set > + * the auth_error appropriately; just fall through: > + */ > } > > out: > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-26 0:34 ` Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-26 20:57 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 2:23 ` Wei Yongjun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-26 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: linux-nfs, nfsv4 On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:34:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > >> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS > >> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY > >> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED > >> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by > >> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct > >> one. So this patch fixed it. > >> > > > > Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) > > > > I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. > #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 Oh, OK--I thought I'd been running the pynfs gss tests, but now I see that I haven't been; I've fixed my test scripts.... Thanks!--b. > > > > >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > >> index 2278a50..6dce327 100644 > >> --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > >> @@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp) > >> goto out_err; > >> break; > >> default: > >> - goto out_err; > >> + goto out; > >> } > >> > >> out: > >> > > > > The goto seems redundant. How about just leaving out the default case > > and providing a comment? (See below.) > > > > --b. > > > > commit ab3654a05aaf367b23bbb3d9229ff72a11999719 > > Author: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Date: Tue Aug 4 17:27:52 2009 +0800 > > > > svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unknown service > > > > When an RPC message is received with RPCSEC_GSS with an unknown service > > (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY, or RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), > > svcauth_gss_accept() returns AUTH_BADCRED, but svcauth_gss_release() > > subsequently drops the response entirely, discarding the error. > > > > Fix that so the AUTH_BADCRED error is returned to the client. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > > index 2e6a148..f6c51e5 100644 > > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > > @@ -1374,8 +1374,10 @@ svcauth_gss_release(struct svc_rqst *rqstp) > > if (stat) > > goto out_err; > > break; > > - default: > > - goto out_err; > > + /* > > + * For any other gc_svc value, svcauth_gss_accept() already set > > + * the auth_error appropriately; just fall through: > > + */ > > } > > > > out: > > > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-26 20:57 ` J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-27 2:23 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-08-27 16:26 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-27 2:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: linux-nfs, nfsv4 Hi J. Bruce Fields, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:34:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: >>> >>> >>>> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS >>>> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY >>>> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED >>>> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by >>>> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct >>>> one. So this patch fixed it. >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) >>> >>> >> I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. >> #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 >> > > Oh, OK--I thought I'd been running the pynfs gss tests, but now I see > that I haven't been; I've fixed my test scripts.... Thanks!--b. > Did you test the test case for write? In the old kernel, there was only one test case WRT5 is FAILURE, but in current kernel, the test cases after WRT5 are all fail, the result like the following: WRT1 st_write.testSimpleWrite : PASS WRT1b st_write.testSimpleWrite2 : PASS WRT2 st_write.testStateidOne : PASS WRT3 st_write.testWithOpen : PASS WRT4 st_write.testNoData : PASS WRT5 st_write.testLargeData : FAILURE timed out WRT6a st_write.testLink : FAILURE timed out WRT6c st_write.testChar : FAILURE timed out WRT6d st_write.testDir : FAILURE timed out WRT6f st_write.testFifo : FAILURE timed out WRT6s st_write.testSocket : FAILURE timed out WRT7 st_write.testNoFh : FAILURE timed out WRT8 st_write.testOpenMode : FAILURE timed out WRT9 st_write.testShareDeny : FAILURE timed out WRT10 st_write.testBadStateid : FAILURE timed out WRT11 st_write.testStaleStateid : FAILURE timed out WRT12 st_write.testOldStateid : FAILURE timed out Case WRT5 fail because the RPC TCP fragment issue. But the rest test cases are fail seems after this patch: svc: Move close processing to a single place http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a Old kernel will close the xprt after receive error. But new code is check before receive, and can nerver enter the check for CLOSE state. Can you have a look at this patch? [PATCH] sunrpc: move the close processing after do recvfrom method Commit svc: Move close processing to a single place (d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a) moved the close processing before the recvfrom method. This may cause the close processing never be execute. So this patch move it to the right place. Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c index 27d4433..fd118d7 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c @@ -710,10 +710,7 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); len = 0; - if (test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { - dprintk("svc_recv: found XPT_CLOSE\n"); - svc_delete_xprt(xprt); - } else if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { struct svc_xprt *newxpt; newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); if (newxpt) { @@ -739,7 +736,7 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) svc_xprt_received(newxpt); } svc_xprt_received(xprt); - } else { + } else if (!test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { dprintk("svc: server %p, pool %u, transport %p, inuse=%d\n", rqstp, pool->sp_id, xprt, atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_ref.refcount)); @@ -752,6 +749,11 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) dprintk("svc: got len=%d\n", len); } + if (test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { + dprintk("svc_recv: found XPT_CLOSE\n"); + svc_delete_xprt(xprt); + } + /* No data, incomplete (TCP) read, or accept() */ if (len == 0 || len == -EAGAIN) { rqstp->rq_res.len = 0; ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-27 2:23 ` Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-27 16:26 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 21:05 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-27 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: linux-nfs, nfsv4 On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > Hi J. Bruce Fields, > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:34:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS > >>>> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY > >>>> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED > >>>> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by > >>>> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct > >>>> one. So this patch fixed it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) > >>> > >>> > >> I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. > >> #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 > >> > > > > Oh, OK--I thought I'd been running the pynfs gss tests, but now I see > > that I haven't been; I've fixed my test scripts.... Thanks!--b. > > > > Did you test the test case for write? In the old kernel, there was only one > test case WRT5 is FAILURE, but in current kernel, the test cases after > WRT5 are all fail, the result like the following: > WRT1 st_write.testSimpleWrite : PASS > WRT1b st_write.testSimpleWrite2 : PASS > WRT2 st_write.testStateidOne : PASS > WRT3 st_write.testWithOpen : PASS > WRT4 st_write.testNoData : PASS > WRT5 st_write.testLargeData : FAILURE > timed out I'm not seeing exactly this, but am seeing timeouts in other tests now that I'm running pynfs tests over gss--it may have the same root cause. Unfortunately, your patch doesn't seem to fix the failures I'm seeing. > WRT6a st_write.testLink : FAILURE > timed out > WRT6c st_write.testChar : FAILURE > timed out > WRT6d st_write.testDir : FAILURE > timed out > WRT6f st_write.testFifo : FAILURE > timed out > WRT6s st_write.testSocket : FAILURE > timed out > WRT7 st_write.testNoFh : FAILURE > timed out > WRT8 st_write.testOpenMode : FAILURE > timed out > WRT9 st_write.testShareDeny : FAILURE > timed out > WRT10 st_write.testBadStateid : FAILURE > timed out > WRT11 st_write.testStaleStateid : FAILURE > timed out > WRT12 st_write.testOldStateid : FAILURE > timed out > > Case WRT5 fail because the RPC TCP fragment issue. But the rest test > cases are fail seems after this patch: > svc: Move close processing to a single place > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a > > Old kernel will close the xprt after receive error. But new code is > check before > receive, and can nerver enter the check for CLOSE state. > > Can you have a look at this patch? OK, thanks, that makes sense. I won't to investigate a little more before applying, though. --b. > > [PATCH] sunrpc: move the close processing after do recvfrom method > > Commit svc: Move close processing to a single place > (d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a) moved the > close processing before the recvfrom method. This may > cause the close processing never be execute. So this > patch move it to the right place. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > index 27d4433..fd118d7 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > @@ -710,10 +710,7 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); > > len = 0; > - if (test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > - dprintk("svc_recv: found XPT_CLOSE\n"); > - svc_delete_xprt(xprt); > - } else if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > struct svc_xprt *newxpt; > newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); > if (newxpt) { > @@ -739,7 +736,7 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > svc_xprt_received(newxpt); > } > svc_xprt_received(xprt); > - } else { > + } else if (!test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > dprintk("svc: server %p, pool %u, transport %p, inuse=%d\n", > rqstp, pool->sp_id, xprt, > atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_ref.refcount)); > @@ -752,6 +749,11 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > dprintk("svc: got len=%d\n", len); > } > > + if (test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > + dprintk("svc_recv: found XPT_CLOSE\n"); > + svc_delete_xprt(xprt); > + } > + > /* No data, incomplete (TCP) read, or accept() */ > if (len == 0 || len == -EAGAIN) { > rqstp->rq_res.len = 0; > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-27 16:26 ` J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-27 21:05 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 21:09 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-28 0:53 ` Wei Yongjun 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-27 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: linux-nfs, nfsv4 On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:26:23PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > Hi J. Bruce Fields, > > > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:34:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > > > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS > > >>>> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY > > >>>> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED > > >>>> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by > > >>>> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct > > >>>> one. So this patch fixed it. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) > > >>> > > >>> > > >> I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. > > >> #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 > > >> > > > > > > Oh, OK--I thought I'd been running the pynfs gss tests, but now I see > > > that I haven't been; I've fixed my test scripts.... Thanks!--b. > > > > > > > Did you test the test case for write? In the old kernel, there was only one > > test case WRT5 is FAILURE, but in current kernel, the test cases after > > WRT5 are all fail, the result like the following: > > WRT1 st_write.testSimpleWrite : PASS > > WRT1b st_write.testSimpleWrite2 : PASS > > WRT2 st_write.testStateidOne : PASS > > WRT3 st_write.testWithOpen : PASS > > WRT4 st_write.testNoData : PASS > > WRT5 st_write.testLargeData : FAILURE > > timed out > > I'm not seeing exactly this, but am seeing timeouts in other tests now > that I'm running pynfs tests over gss--it may have the same root cause. > Unfortunately, your patch doesn't seem to fix the failures I'm seeing. > > > WRT6a st_write.testLink : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT6c st_write.testChar : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT6d st_write.testDir : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT6f st_write.testFifo : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT6s st_write.testSocket : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT7 st_write.testNoFh : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT8 st_write.testOpenMode : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT9 st_write.testShareDeny : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT10 st_write.testBadStateid : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT11 st_write.testStaleStateid : FAILURE > > timed out > > WRT12 st_write.testOldStateid : FAILURE > > timed out > > > > Case WRT5 fail because the RPC TCP fragment issue. But the rest test > > cases are fail seems after this patch: > > svc: Move close processing to a single place > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a > > > > Old kernel will close the xprt after receive error. But new code is > > check before > > receive, and can nerver enter the check for CLOSE state. > > > > Can you have a look at this patch? > > OK, thanks, that makes sense. I won't to investigate a little more > before applying, though. Bah, it looks like I was just seeing a disagreement between pynfs and nfsd about whether the sequence number should be incremented in the case of an otherwise correct packet with a bad gss_service, which means that after running GSS8, any subsequent requests with the same context are dropped (and time out). Since this sitaution is of no practical interest whatsoever (I can't see why we'd ever see a request that was broken in this particular way), I think the correct solution is to just stop running GSS8.... (This is the problem with spending a lot of time on pynfs tests. They've been useful for catching regressions, but there's a risk of spending too much time tracking down "problems" that won't actually show up in real situations. Time would usually be better spent on bugs (and/or performance problems) found in actual use.) --b. > > --b. > > > > > [PATCH] sunrpc: move the close processing after do recvfrom method > > > > Commit svc: Move close processing to a single place > > (d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a) moved the > > close processing before the recvfrom method. This may > > cause the close processing never be execute. So this > > patch move it to the right place. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > > index 27d4433..fd118d7 100644 > > --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c > > @@ -710,10 +710,7 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > > spin_unlock_bh(&pool->sp_lock); > > > > len = 0; > > - if (test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > > - dprintk("svc_recv: found XPT_CLOSE\n"); > > - svc_delete_xprt(xprt); > > - } else if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > > + if (test_bit(XPT_LISTENER, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > > struct svc_xprt *newxpt; > > newxpt = xprt->xpt_ops->xpo_accept(xprt); > > if (newxpt) { > > @@ -739,7 +736,7 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > > svc_xprt_received(newxpt); > > } > > svc_xprt_received(xprt); > > - } else { > > + } else if (!test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > > dprintk("svc: server %p, pool %u, transport %p, inuse=%d\n", > > rqstp, pool->sp_id, xprt, > > atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_ref.refcount)); > > @@ -752,6 +749,11 @@ int svc_recv(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, long timeout) > > dprintk("svc: got len=%d\n", len); > > } > > > > + if (test_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags)) { > > + dprintk("svc_recv: found XPT_CLOSE\n"); > > + svc_delete_xprt(xprt); > > + } > > + > > /* No data, incomplete (TCP) read, or accept() */ > > if (len == 0 || len == -EAGAIN) { > > rqstp->rq_res.len = 0; > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-27 21:05 ` J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-27 21:09 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-28 0:53 ` Wei Yongjun 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-27 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: Neil Brown, linux-nfs, nfsv4 On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:05:30PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:26:23PM -0400, bfields wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > Hi J. Bruce Fields, > > > > > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:34:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > > > > > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS > > > >>>> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY > > > >>>> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED > > > >>>> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by > > > >>>> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct > > > >>>> one. So this patch fixed it. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. > > > >> #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 > > > >> > > > > > > > > Oh, OK--I thought I'd been running the pynfs gss tests, but now I see > > > > that I haven't been; I've fixed my test scripts.... Thanks!--b. > > > > > > > > > > Did you test the test case for write? In the old kernel, there was only one > > > test case WRT5 is FAILURE, but in current kernel, the test cases after > > > WRT5 are all fail, the result like the following: > > > WRT1 st_write.testSimpleWrite : PASS > > > WRT1b st_write.testSimpleWrite2 : PASS > > > WRT2 st_write.testStateidOne : PASS > > > WRT3 st_write.testWithOpen : PASS > > > WRT4 st_write.testNoData : PASS > > > WRT5 st_write.testLargeData : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > > I'm not seeing exactly this, but am seeing timeouts in other tests now > > that I'm running pynfs tests over gss--it may have the same root cause. > > Unfortunately, your patch doesn't seem to fix the failures I'm seeing. > > > > > WRT6a st_write.testLink : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT6c st_write.testChar : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT6d st_write.testDir : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT6f st_write.testFifo : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT6s st_write.testSocket : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT7 st_write.testNoFh : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT8 st_write.testOpenMode : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT9 st_write.testShareDeny : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT10 st_write.testBadStateid : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT11 st_write.testStaleStateid : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > WRT12 st_write.testOldStateid : FAILURE > > > timed out > > > > > > Case WRT5 fail because the RPC TCP fragment issue. But the rest test > > > cases are fail seems after this patch: > > > svc: Move close processing to a single place > > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a > > > > > > Old kernel will close the xprt after receive error. But new code is > > > check before > > > receive, and can nerver enter the check for CLOSE state. > > > > > > Can you have a look at this patch? > > > > OK, thanks, that makes sense. I won't to investigate a little more > > before applying, though. > > Bah, it looks like I was just seeing a disagreement between pynfs and > nfsd about whether the sequence number should be incremented in the case > of an otherwise correct packet with a bad gss_service, which means that > after running GSS8, any subsequent requests with the same context are > dropped (and time out). (Your patch still looks fine to me, though--applied). --b. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-27 21:05 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 21:09 ` J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-28 0:53 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-08-28 16:11 ` J. Bruce Fields 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-28 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: Neil Brown, linux-nfs, nfsv4 J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:26:23PM -0400, bfields wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:23:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: >> >>> Hi J. Bruce Fields, >>> >>> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:34:39AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:27:52PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> When RPC messages is received with RPCSEC_GSS, and if the RPCSEC_GSS >>>>>>> include unkown services (not RPC_GSS_SVC_NONE, RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY >>>>>>> and RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY), the response is considered as AUTH_BADCRED >>>>>>> in svcauth_gss_accept(), but the response be drop by >>>>>>> svcauth_gss_release(). I think response with AUTH_BADCRED is correct >>>>>>> one. So this patch fixed it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! How did you find this? (And how did you test the result?) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I test this used newpynfs, the GSS8 item test for this. >>>>> #./testserver.py nfsserver:/ --security=krb5 GSS8 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Oh, OK--I thought I'd been running the pynfs gss tests, but now I see >>>> that I haven't been; I've fixed my test scripts.... Thanks!--b. >>>> >>>> >>> Did you test the test case for write? In the old kernel, there was only one >>> test case WRT5 is FAILURE, but in current kernel, the test cases after >>> WRT5 are all fail, the result like the following: >>> WRT1 st_write.testSimpleWrite : PASS >>> WRT1b st_write.testSimpleWrite2 : PASS >>> WRT2 st_write.testStateidOne : PASS >>> WRT3 st_write.testWithOpen : PASS >>> WRT4 st_write.testNoData : PASS >>> WRT5 st_write.testLargeData : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> >> I'm not seeing exactly this, but am seeing timeouts in other tests now >> that I'm running pynfs tests over gss--it may have the same root cause. >> Unfortunately, your patch doesn't seem to fix the failures I'm seeing. >> >> >>> WRT6a st_write.testLink : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT6c st_write.testChar : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT6d st_write.testDir : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT6f st_write.testFifo : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT6s st_write.testSocket : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT7 st_write.testNoFh : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT8 st_write.testOpenMode : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT9 st_write.testShareDeny : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT10 st_write.testBadStateid : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT11 st_write.testStaleStateid : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> WRT12 st_write.testOldStateid : FAILURE >>> timed out >>> >>> Case WRT5 fail because the RPC TCP fragment issue. But the rest test >>> cases are fail seems after this patch: >>> svc: Move close processing to a single place >>> >>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d7979ae4a050a45b78af51832475001b68263d2a >>> >>> Old kernel will close the xprt after receive error. But new code is >>> check before >>> receive, and can nerver enter the check for CLOSE state. >>> >>> Can you have a look at this patch? >>> >> OK, thanks, that makes sense. I won't to investigate a little more >> before applying, though. >> > > Bah, it looks like I was just seeing a disagreement between pynfs and > nfsd about whether the sequence number should be incremented in the case > of an otherwise correct packet with a bad gss_service, which means that > after running GSS8, any subsequent requests with the same context are > dropped (and time out). > > Since this sitaution is of no practical interest whatsoever (I can't > see why we'd ever see a request that was broken in this particular way), > I think the correct solution is to just stop running GSS8.... > When I test, I just fixed the GSS8 with this patch: diff --git a/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py b/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py index 6ad3e3e..dfff598 100644 --- a/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py +++ b/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py @@ -330,4 +330,5 @@ def testBadService(t, env): "should return AUTH_BADCRED, instead got %s" % (service, e)) finally: + orig.gss_seq_num = c.security.gss_seq_num c.security = orig I am not have a test of all the case with --security=krb5, just test the gss. This is because the krb server does not always works well.^_^ > (This is the problem with spending a lot of time on pynfs tests. > They've been useful for catching regressions, but there's a risk of > spending too much time tracking down "problems" that won't actually show > up in real situations. Time would usually be better spent on bugs > (and/or performance problems) found in actual use.) > ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services 2009-08-28 0:53 ` Wei Yongjun @ 2009-08-28 16:11 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2009-08-28 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: Neil Brown, linux-nfs, nfsv4, iisaman On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:53:44AM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > When I test, I just fixed the GSS8 with this patch: > > diff --git a/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py b/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py > index 6ad3e3e..dfff598 100644 > --- a/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py > +++ b/lib/nfs4/servertests/st_gss.py > @@ -330,4 +330,5 @@ def testBadService(t, env): > "should return AUTH_BADCRED, instead got %s" % > (service, e)) > finally: > + orig.gss_seq_num = c.security.gss_seq_num > c.security = orig It might make sense just to apply something like this to upstream pynfs. The choice of whether to increment the sequence id here isn't obvious, but I actually think the server's more likely to be right (the rfc says to increment when the checksum is succesfully verified, which it was in this case. At that point we know the contents of the header are what the client intended.) --b. > > > I am not have a test of all the case with --security=krb5, just test > the gss. This is because the krb server does not always works well.^_^ > > > > (This is the problem with spending a lot of time on pynfs tests. > > They've been useful for catching regressions, but there's a risk of > > spending too much time tracking down "problems" that won't actually show > > up in real situations. Time would usually be better spent on bugs > > (and/or performance problems) found in actual use.) > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-08-28 16:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-08-04 9:27 [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services Wei Yongjun 2009-08-25 21:40 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-26 0:34 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-08-26 20:57 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 2:23 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-08-27 16:26 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 21:05 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-27 21:09 ` J. Bruce Fields 2009-08-28 0:53 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-08-28 16:11 ` J. Bruce Fields
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox