From: Stanislav Kholmanskikh <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Vasily Isaenko <vasily.isaenko@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:20:34 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131106115648.GA24804@infradead.org>
On 11/06/2013 03:56 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've noticed that xfstests 193 fails when run over NFS talking to an
> XFS-based Linux server. The test checks that we behave correctly
> vs Posix 1003.1 for the various operations that end up in ->setattr.
>
> Without the no_root_squash export flag we're not even able to run
> something resembling the test as we get permission problems all through
> it, see the first attachment for details.
>
> With the root_squash export op we fail to clear the setuid/setgid
> bits in various truncate and chown subtests, see the second attachment
> for details.
Hi!
I've come across the same issue. But NFS server is backed by ext4 file
system in my environment.
The test case quotes POSIX:
"If the specified file is a regular file, one or more of the S_IXUSR,
S_IXGRP, or S_IXOTH bits of the
file mode are set, and the process has appropriate privileges, it is
implementation-defined whether the set-user-ID and set-group-ID
bits are altered."
So the difference that what we have now:
between nfs:
~# touch file; chmod ug+s file; chmod u+x file; ls -l file; chown root
file; ls -l file; rm -f file
-rwsr-Sr-- 1 root root 0 Dec 6 04:49 file
-rwsr-Sr-- 1 root root 0 Dec 6 04:49 file
and ext3, ext4, xfs, btrfs:
~# touch file; chmod ug+s file; chmod u+x file; ls -l file; chown root
file; ls -l file; rm -f file
-rwsr-Sr-- 1 root root 0 Dec 6 04:49 file
-rwxr-Sr-- 1 root root 0 Dec 6 04:49 file
is not a violation of this POSIX statement. But It's just an
"implementation-defined" behaviour.
I suppose that the difference raises because of this part of code in
fs/nfsd/vfs.c:
/* Revoke setuid/setgid on chown */
if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
(((iap->ia_valid & ATTR_UID) && !uid_eq(iap->ia_uid,
inode->i_uid)) ||
((iap->ia_valid & ATTR_GID) && !gid_eq(iap->ia_gid,
inode->i_gid)))) {
iap->ia_valid |= ATTR_KILL_PRIV;
if (iap->ia_valid & ATTR_MODE) {
/* we're setting mode too, just clear the s*id
bits */
iap->ia_mode &= ~S_ISUID;
if (iap->ia_mode & S_IXGRP)
iap->ia_mode &= ~S_ISGID;
} else {
/* set ATTR_KILL_* bits and let VFS handle it */
iap->ia_valid |= (ATTR_KILL_SUID | ATTR_KILL_SGID);
}
}
uid_eq() and gid_eq() checkings allow removal of s*id bits only if the
owner/group of the file is changed during chown().
I.e. on nfs:
~# touch file; chmod ug+s file; chmod u+x file; ls -l file; chown bin
file; ls -l file; rm -f file
-rwsr-Sr-- 1 root root 0 Dec 6 05:02 file
-rwxr-Sr-- 1 bin root 0 Dec 6 05:02 file
Is it acceptable to change NFS kernel server behaviour by removal of
!uid_eq(iap->ia_uid, inode->i_uid) and !gid_eq(iap->ia_gid,
inode->i_gid) from the condition above?
Just to make the behaviour more consistent between NFS and other "local"
file systems as It was done by
commit
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?id=0953e620de0538cbd081f1b45126f6098112a598
Thank you!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-06 13:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-06 11:56 nfs vs xfstests 193 Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-06 13:20 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh [this message]
2013-12-06 18:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-06 20:44 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-12-06 20:47 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-12-10 14:43 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2013-12-11 10:16 ` [PATCH] nfsd: revoking of suid/sgid bits after chown() in a consistent way Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2013-12-11 11:00 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2013-12-12 3:38 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-12-12 8:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 11:44 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2013-12-12 16:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
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=52A1CF22.106@oracle.com \
--to=stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vasily.isaenko@oracle.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).