Re: [PATCH] svcgss: reply AUTH_BADCRED to RPCSEC_GSS with unkown services

J. Bruce Fields
2009-08-27T21:09:37Z

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.