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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #67316

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)

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi Bruce,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:42:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:38:20PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed reproducer.
> > 
> > It's weird, as the server is basically just setting the transmitted
> > umask and then calling into the vfs to handle the rest, so it's not much
> > different from any other user.  But the same reproducer run just on the
> > ext4 filesystem does give the right permissions....
> > 
> > Oh, but looking at the system call, fs_namei.c:do_mkdirat(), it does:
> > 
> > 	if (!IS_POSIXACL(path.dentry->d_inode))
> > 		mode &= ~current_umask();
> > 	error = security_path_mkdir(&path, dentry, mode);
> > 	if (!error)
> > 		error = vfs_mkdir(path.dentry->d_inode, dentry, mode);
> > 
> > whereas nfsd just calls into vfs_mkdir().
> > 
> > And that IS_POSIXACL() check is exactly a check whether the filesystem
> > supports ACLs.  So I guess it's the responsibility of the caller of
> > vfs_mkdir() to handle that case.
> 
> But, that's unsatisfying: why isn't vfs_mkdir() taking care of this
> itself?  And what about that security_path_mkdir() call?  And are the
> other cases of that switch in fs/nfsd/vfs.c:nfsd_create_locked()
> correct?  I think there may be some more cleanup here called for, I'll
> poke around tomorrow.

This might be unneeded to test but as additional datapoint which
confirms the suspect: I tried check the commit around 47057abde515
("nfsd: add support for the umask attribute") in 4.10-rc1

A kernel built with 47057abde515~1, and mounting from an enough recent
client which has at least dff25ddb4808 ("nfs: add support for the
umask attribute") does not show the observed behaviour, the server
built with 47057abde515 does.

Regards,
Salvatore

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous 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