Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #67310

Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2)

Path csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.kernel
Subject Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2)
Date Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:00:02 +0200
Message-ID <Ai2uS-2IP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <AedoR-7Uq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AeekV-8tp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AedoR-7Uq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Aep6F-7Oh-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <Aepq1-7Uz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AgE1z-XY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AhdVn-5Re-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <Ahjo5-Jn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <AhYUi-Kt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <AedoR-7Uq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AhYUi-Kt-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
X-Mailbox-Line From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Mon Jun 15 18:57:11 2020
Old-Return-Path <debbugs@buxtehude.debian.org>
X-Spam-Flag NO
X-Spam-Score -0.5
Reply-To Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>, 962254@bugs.debian.org
Original-Sender Salvatore Bonaccorso <salvatore.bonaccorso@gmail.com>
Resent-To debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-Cc Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
X-Debian-Pr-Message followup 962254
X-Debian-Pr-Package src:linux
X-Debian-Pr-Keywords security
X-Debian-Pr-Source linux
X-Spam-Bayes score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 21; hammy, 150; neutral, 171; spammy, 0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*F:U*carnil, 0.000-+--H*r:TLS1_3, 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:eldamar, 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:sk:80-218-, 0.000-+--H*rp:U*salvatore.bonaccorso
Dkim-Signature v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jFWR4GWMFwIjjeSDQ+KIpHiNpC5sqk3sNtM8x1vASuc=; b=UgFbJCq7jOjH3ijdZaqBLjm/94BWAgcamJk/3bpFJuv8YrXp42hh/4aA/yCzp/zaJk xdlbQx+oqtgD2ydz647yFEWMyDptPW5lvsc3sKx5pteoWuM7q8DqhGVrn5oHbEGkrZl8 54w/V21t1cpKt63uF3ALgzpmRPcm2UnVcO+tUU2iQRpADPpeNfOmLuMzpUPyYdrV4e7d LZjv5YkreD8eZzZijvg5MWgQXgRWhiLKS4ALM6AZBX5O7cP1OOql/B9R54VvRam7GGvd f7KIygD+1R4VrkrodKDmX2i4GF44c1uP7Ns0eUYsGoOHFaLAP2Sl/OYXF48JdzEsqUoI I5aA==
X-Google-Dkim-Signature v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jFWR4GWMFwIjjeSDQ+KIpHiNpC5sqk3sNtM8x1vASuc=; b=ccL4upuMESX8JhvnGbIIakdmgTIRCXVgl4F8CTeBd8GZykjYLg58wRvgecsAoLfkfR CZ5COsNz7/nah87Q7Us/OIRlCtbuKZ9FnDFY0Dv+PWke9Kja6OmdSuIH7+q6VRdJNaZC pyubJBJTmqtS1J7pSOG9A8j1t5LFmerHKJVV56vkJiPOv0Y+dkZEZ4TowkixWzKTfDv0 vtJ/njv684rFyanySphCftDuIT3eSbB1NPpfu4U3yJf6OykTrWNq1DP7MXxDYxFnmozK qjaYhPUpFJhRTS4lvhxB5r/vHM1qli1i5sV7G7whw42AoLS2BU4fKkS822GzTgYN4IYt TBYw==
X-Gm-Message-State AOAM530N01YbUCnLK463yj9RQktTj45BZvNPFdpxV5+5YdjE+Ir5miB2 KNP1rxBytgM0S7KxSurP6Ek=
X-Google-SMTP-Source ABdhPJxI2wluavmydq5P9ZQXPNnrICM0EybzJ5wG6wocDeYgRLY5y7Cn2KASekrcPRLLu2A4mwmDJA==
X-Received by 2002:adf:ecc2:: with SMTP id s2mr33194597wro.60.1592247193102; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender robomod@news.nic.it
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
X-Debian-Message from BTS
X-Mailing-List <debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/1608604
List-ID <debian-bugs-dist.lists.debian.org>
List-URL <https://lists.debian.org/debian-bugs-dist/>
Approved robomod@news.nic.it
Lines 61
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com>, 962254@bugs.debian.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, agruenba@redhat.com
X-Original-Date Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:53:11 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID <20200615185311.GA702681@eldamar.local>
X-Original-References <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200605064426.GA1538868@eldamar.local> <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200605174349.GA40135@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200605183631.GA1720057@eldamar.local> <20200611223711.GA37917@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200613125431.GA349352@eldamar.local> <20200613184527.GA54221@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org> <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org>
X-Original-Sender Salvatore Bonaccorso <salvatore.bonaccorso@gmail.com>
Xref csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1013993 linux.debian.kernel:67310

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw


Hi Bruce,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:45:27AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > I disagree with this assessment.  All of the reporters have been using
> > ZFS, but this could indicate an absence of testers using other
> > filesystems.  We need someone with a NFS server which has a 4.15+ kernel
> > and uses a different filesystem which supports ACLs.
> 
> Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so
> it's possible I could have missed something upstream.  I haven't seen
> any reports, though....
> 
> ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any in-tree
> filesystem's, and given limited time, a filesystem with no prospect of
> going upstream isn't going to get much attention, so, yes, I'd need to
> see a reproducer on xfs or ext4 or something.

I think the following is reproducible on a ext4 exported share (with
underlying filesystem mounted with noacl to mimic the suspect from the
reporter). I tested the same with an older kernel from Debian stretch
(running 4.9.210-1+deb9u1) but this does not show the same behaviour.

The current test system is running 5.6.14-2 Debian kernel (so 5.6.14).

1/ Create an ext4 filesystem:

# mkfs.ext4 /dev/vdb1

2/ Mount the filesystem with noacl (to mimic the situation):

/dev/vdb1 /srv/data ext4 defaults,noacl 0 0

root@nfs-test:~# mount | grep vdb1
/dev/vdb1 on /srv/data type ext4 (rw,relatime,noacl)

3/ Export with

/srv/data 192.168.122.1/24(rw,sync,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash)

4/ Reproduce the issue

root@nfs-test:~# mount -t nfs 192.168.122.150:/srv/data /mnt
root@nfs-test:~# mkdir /mnt/foo && ls -ld /mnt/foo && rmdir /mnt/foo
drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4096 Jun 15 20:24 /mnt/foo
root@nfs-test:~# mount | grep data
/dev/vdb1 on /srv/data type ext4 (rw,relatime,noacl)
192.168.122.150:/srv/data on /mnt type nfs4 (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=524288,wsize=524288,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=192.168.122.150,local_lock=none,addr=192.168.122.150)
root@nfs-test:~# umount /mnt

Looking at a wireshark captured sniff, the situation was the same as in the
previous ZFS case, in the gettattr from the client and the server does indicate
support for the new mode_umask. Then later in the CREATE operation, the client
sets the mode_umask attribute, with mode part set to '0777' and umask to '022'.
The mode replied is then as well '0777'.

Notabene: if not mounting the filesystem with noacl, then there is no
observed behaviour change here.

Regards,
Salvatore

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com> - 2020-06-05 07:50 +0200
  Processed: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2020-06-05 08:50 +0200
  Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-05 08:50 +0200
    Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com> - 2020-06-05 20:20 +0200
      Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-05 20:40 +0200
        Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com> - 2020-06-06 00:40 +0200
        Bug#934160: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com> - 2020-06-09 04:00 +0200
  Processed: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2 "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2020-06-09 04:00 +0200
  Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported ZFS (with acltype=off) (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-13 15:00 +0200
  Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported ZFS (with acltype=off) (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com> - 2020-06-15 17:10 +0200
    Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-15 21:00 +0200
  Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com> - 2020-06-16 04:50 +0200
    Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-16 07:40 +0200
    Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-16 18:30 +0200
      Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com> - 2020-06-17 03:10 +0200
        Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-17 07:10 +0200
  Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2020-06-16 07:40 +0200
  Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com> - 2020-06-17 17:40 +0200
    Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> - 2020-06-17 19:00 +0200

csiph-web