Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Make creates return EEXIST correctly instead of EPERM

Oleg Drokin
2016-07-08T21:47:41Z

On Jul 8, 2016, at 4:49 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:16:14PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:04 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:53:28AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 11:14 -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 7:02 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 21:47 -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>>>>> It looks like we are bit overzealous about failing mkdir/create/mknod
>>>>>>> with permission denied if the parent dir is not writeable.
>>>>>>> Need to make sure the name does not exist first, because we need to
>>>>>>> return EEXIST in that case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> A very similar problem exists with symlinks, but the patch is more
>>>>>>> involved, so assuming this one is ok, I'll send a symlink one separately.
>>>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>>>> fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nit: subject says EPERM, but I think you mean EACCES. The mnemonic I've
>>>>>> always used is that EPERM is "permanent". IOW, changing permissions
>>>>>> won't ever allow the user to do something. For instance, unprivileged
>>>>>> users can never chown a file, so they should get back EPERM there. When
>>>>>> a directory isn't writeable on a create they should get EACCES since
>>>>>> they could do the create if the directory were writeable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, I see, thanks.
>>>>> Confusing that you get "Permission denied" from perror ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. It's a subtle and confusing distinction.
>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>>>>>>> index de1ff1d..0067520 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>>>>>>> @@ -605,8 +605,12 @@ nfsd4_create(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fh_init(&resfh, NFS4_FHSIZE);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * We just check thta parent is accessible here, nfsd_* do their
>>>>>>> + * own access permission checks
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> status = fh_verify(rqstp, &cstate->current_fh, S_IFDIR,
>>>>>>> - NFSD_MAY_CREATE);
>>>>>>> + NFSD_MAY_EXEC);
>>>>>>> if (status)
>>>>>>> return status;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>>>>> index 6fbd81e..6a45ec6 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1161,7 +1161,11 @@ nfsd_create(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp,
>>>>>>> if (isdotent(fname, flen))
>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - err = fh_verify(rqstp, fhp, S_IFDIR, NFSD_MAY_CREATE);
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * Even though it is a create, first we see if we are even allowed
>>>>>>> + * to peek inside the parent
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + err = fh_verify(rqstp, fhp, S_IFDIR, NFSD_MAY_EXEC);
>>>>>>> if (err)
>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -1211,6 +1215,11 @@ nfsd_create(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp,
>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /* Now let's see if we actually have permissions to create */
>>>>>>> + err = nfsd_permission(rqstp, fhp->fh_export, dentry, NFSD_MAY_CREATE);
>>>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> if (!(iap->ia_valid & ATTR_MODE))
>>>>>>> iap->ia_mode = 0;
>>>>>>> iap->ia_mode = (iap->ia_mode & S_IALLUGO) | type;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ouch. This means two nfsd_permission calls per create operation. If
>>>>>> it's necessary for correctness then so be it, but is it actually
>>>>>> documented anywhere (POSIX perhaps?) that we must prefer EEXIST over
>>>>>> EACCES in this situation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Opengroup manpage: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/mkdir.html
>>>>> newer version is here:
>>>>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
>>>>>
>>>>> They tell us that we absolutely must fail with EEXIST if the name is a symlink
>>>>> (so we need to lookup it anyway), and also that EEXIST is the failure code
>>>>> if the path exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that that verbiage supersedes the fact that you don't have
>>>> write permissions on the directory. Does it?
>>>>
>>>> ISTM that it's perfectly valid to shortcut looking up the dentry if the
>>>> user doesn't have write permissions on the directory, even when the
>>>> target is a symlink.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, I'm not sure I see a bug here.
>>>
>>> If this is causing real programs to behave incorrectly, then that may
>>> matter more than the letter of the spec. But I'm a little curious why
>>> we'd be hearing about that just now--did the client or server's behavior
>>> change recently?
>>
>> We, on the Lustre side, have been hearing about this since 2010, (this optimization
>> was enabled in 2009).
>>
>> I suspect some people just complain in places that not everybody monitors.
>
> Sure, but you said "tons of programs" do this, and off hand I can't
> recall a single report. That's weird.

I wonder if people just accept that "NFS is just weird" and code in workarounds,
where as with Lustre we promise (almost) full POSIX compliance, and also came much later
so people are just seeing that "this does not work" and complain more loudly?

>From the two ready examples, the torque job scheduler and Matlab are the two examples
of programs we got bugreports from, but they are not the only ones for sure.
There are some "custom code references too.
So I guess "tons of" is a relative measure.

> Anyway, I agree that the behavior your want seems more consistent at
> least.
>
> --b.
>
>> I tried 3.10 and it has the same problem here.
>> I just tried on RHEL6 (2.6.32) and the problem is also apparent there.
>>
>> Also it's confusing how you get different errors depending on if the cache is hot or not:
>> [green@centos6-16 racer]$ mkdir test
>> mkdir: cannot create directory `test': Permission denied
>> [green@centos6-16 racer]$ ls -ld test
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jul 8 12:12 test
>> [green@centos6-16 racer]$ mkdir test
>> mkdir: cannot create directory `test': File exists
>>
>>
>>>>> Are double permission checks really as bad for nfs? it looked like it would
>>>>> call mostly into VFS so even if first call would be expensive, second call should
>>>>> be really cheap?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the underlying fs. In most cases, you're right, but you
>>>> can export things that overload the ->permission op, and those can be
>>>> as expensive as they like (within reason of course).
>>>
>>> Weird if the expense of a second permission call is significant compared
>>> to following the mkdir and sync. But, what do I know.
>>>
>>> --b.