Re: [PATCH] lockd: fix TEST handling when not all permissions are available.

Chuck Lever
2026-03-25T13:28:29Z

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026, at 3:08 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026, at 6:13 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> > From: NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>
>> >
>> > The F_GETLK fcntl can work with either read access or write access or
>> > both. It can query F_RDLCK and F_WRLCK locks in either case.
>> >
>> > However lockd currently treats F_GETLK similar to F_SETLK in that read
>> > access is required to query an F_RDLCK lock and write access is required
>> > to query a F_WRLCK lock.
>> >
>> > This is wrong and can cause problem - e.g. when qemu accesses a
>> > read-only (e.g. iso) filesystem image over NFS (though why it queries
>> > if it can get a write lock - I don't know. But it does, and this works
>> > with local filesystems).
>> >
>> > So we need TEST requests to be handled differently. To do this:
>> >
>> > - change nlm_do_fopen() to accept O_RDWR as a mode and in that case
>> > succeed if either a O_RDONLY or O_WRONLY file can be opened.
>> > - change nlm_lookup_file() to accept a mode argument from caller,
>> > instead of deducing base on lock time, and pass that on to nlm_do_fopen()
>> > - change nlm4svc_retrieve_args() and nlmsvc_retrieve_args() to detect
>> > TEST requests and pass O_RDWR as a mode to nlm_lookup_file, passing
>> > the same mode as before for other requests. Also set
>> > lock->fl.c.flc_file to whichever file is available for TEST requests.
>> > - change nlmsvc_testlock() to also not calculate the mode, but to use
>> > whenever was stored in lock->fl.c.flc_file.
>> >
>> > Reported-by: Tj <tj.iam.tj@proton.me>
>> > Link: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1128861
>> > Fixes: 7f024fcd5c97 ("Keep read and write fds with each nlm_file")
>> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>
>>
>> Hi Neil, which kernels should this fix apply to?
>>
>
> v6.13 and later. So linux-6.18.y and linux-6.19.y

Assuming that includes upstream, I recommend that I take this
into nfsd-testing / nfsd-next and let nature, ah, er, stable
automation, take it's course.

> The Fixes: tag is actually wrong. This bug has been present forever.
> However a different bug that
> Commit: 4cc9b9f2bf4d ("nfsd: refine and rename NFSD_MAY_LOCK")
> fixed was hiding the bug.
>
> So it should probably be marked
> Fixes: 4cc9b9f2bf4d ("nfsd: refine and rename NFSD_MAY_LOCK")
> with an explanation.

IIUC, we want Fixes: to point to the commit that introduced
the issue (Fixes: since forever) and then use a "# v6.13+"
comment on the Cc: stable to control how far back to backport
it.

Commit message could mention that 4cc9b9f2bf4d uncovered the
issue.

--
Chuck Lever