Re: [pnfs] [GIT BISECT] first bad commit: 1f36f774 Switch !O_CREAT case to use of do_last()

Boaz Harrosh
2010-03-25T14:27:19Z

On 03/25/2010 04:04 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:45:53PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> Does open() of directory _without_ O_DIRECTORY work in e.g. vanilla 2.6.33?
>>> It certainly does for local filesystems and it does for NFSv3; does it work
>>> for NFSv4?
>>
>> In my tests. Every thing is the same safe the client with the above change.
>>
>> So I guess NFSv4 does something different when asked for directory lookup
>> as opposed to files lookup. I guess there is something added/removed to
>> the compound depending on that flag. But I wouldn't know, I am not familiar
>> with this code. NFSv4 someone?
>
> OK, what happens if you do the following:
>
> mount the same fs from two clients
> on one client:
> mkdir /mnt/weird_name_69
> on another:
> echo 'main() {open("/mnt/weird_name_69", 0);}' >/tmp/a.c
> gcc /tmp/a.c
> strace ./a.out
> ls -l /mnt/weird_name_69
> strace ./a.out
>
> Will the first strace show EISDIR and the second succeed?
>
> From my reading of that code (2.6.33, before all that stuff got merged),
> we have different behaviour depending on which codepath do we hit.
> If we go through ->d_revalidate(), it sees that it's not S_ISREG() and
> doesn't try to play with atomic open. If we go through ->lookup(), we
> tell the server to open it, and when it tells us to bugger off (it's a
> directory, NFSv4 doesn't support atomic open for those), -EISDIR is
> passed to caller. Which leads to open() failing.
>
> It definitely looks like a bug. Masked by O_DIRECTORY in 2.6.33. Bug
> in fs/namei.c patch has exposed that crap both for O_DIRECTORY and !O_DIRECTORY
> cases.
>
> So immediate fix will need to be along the lines of "add LOOKUP_DIRECTORY
> even on the last step if we have *want_dir" (and I'd probably get rid of
> want_dir then and just abuse nd->flags), but there's a real NFS bug as
> well.

NFS bug, you mean by not being consistent when opening a directory from
cache or when having to fetch it for the first time? I guess...

But I still think it is a problem that the application, git in this case,
did an open(,O_DIRECTORY...) and because of code reuse some low-level did
not see that flag, relaying on the fact that in most systems they don't care.

The nd->flags things looks like the right thing to me.

And about the NFS thing, let misbehaving applications byte there own bullets.
But a good app like git, does put an O_DIRECTORY on the directory open, and
therefore will receive consistent results, right?

Please push a fix, meanwhile I'm running with this one, but I will need it
in linux-next later.

Thanks for everything
Boaz