[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] VFS: fix recent breakage of FS_REVAL_DOT
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 00:01 +0100, Al Viro wrote: 
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 05:13:32PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Sorry... I misunderstood you.
> >
> > In cases like the above, then the default behaviour of the server would
> > be to assign the same filehandles to those mount points. The
> > administrator can, however, make them different by choosing to use the
> > 'fsid' mount option to manually assign different fsids to the different
> > export points.
> >
> > If not, then the client will automatically group these things in the
> > same superblock, so like the server, it too is supposed to share the
> > same inode for these different objects. It will then use
> > d_obtain_alias() to get a root dentry for that inode (see
> > nfs4_get_root()).
> Yes, it will. So what will happen in nfs_follow_referral()? Note that
> we check the rootpath returned by the server (whatever it will end up
> being) against the mnt_devname + relative path from mnt_root to referral
> point. In this case it'll be /a/z or /b/z (depending on which export
> will server select when it sees the fsid) vs /a/z/x or /b/z/x (depending
> on which one does client walk into). And the calls of nfs4_proc_fs_locations()
> will get identical arguments whether client walks into a/z/x or b/z/x.
> So will the actual RPC requests seen by the server, so it looks like in
> at least one of those cases we will get the rootpath that is _not_ a prefix
> we are expecting, stepping into
> if (strncmp(path, fs_path, strlen(fs_path)) != 0) {
> dprintk("%s: path %s does not begin with fsroot %s\n",
> __func__, path, fs_path);
> return -ENOENT;
> }
> in nfs4_validate_fspath().
> Question regarding RFC3530: is it actually allowed to have the same fhandle
> show up in two different locations in server's namespace? If so, what
> should GETATTR with FS_LOCATIONS return for it?

I think the general expectation in the protocol is that there are no
hard linked directories. This assumption is reflected in the fact that
we have operations such as LOOKUPP (the NFSv4 equivalent of
lookup("..")) which only take a filehandle argument.

> Client question: what stops you from stack overflows in that area? Call
> chains you've got are *deep*, and I really wonder what happens if you
> hit a referral point while traversing nested symlink, get pathname
> resolution (already several levels into recursion) call ->follow_link(),
> bounce down through nfs_do_refmount/nfs_follow_referral/try_location/
> vfs_kern_mount/nfs4_referral_get_sb/nfs_follow_remote_path into
> vfs_path_lookup, which will cheerfully add a few more loops like that.
> Sure, the *total* nesting depth through symlinks is still limited by 8, but
> that pile of stack frames is _MUCH_ fatter than what we normally have in
> pathname resolution. You've suddenly added ~60 extra stack frames to the
> worst-case stack footprint of the pathname resolution. Don't try that
> on sparc64, boys and girls, it won't be happy with attempt to carve ~12Kb
> extra out of its kernel stack... In fact, it's worse than just ~60 stack
> frames - several will contain (on-stack) struct nameidata in them, which
> very definitely will _not_ fit into the minimal stack frame. It's about
> 160 bytes extra, for each of those (up to 7).
> Come to think of that, x86 variants might get rather upset about that kind
> of treatment as well. Minimal stack frames are smaller, but so's the stack...

See commit ce587e07ba2e25b5c9d286849885b82676661f3e (NFS: Prevent the
mount code from looping forever on broken exports) which was just
merged. It prevents nesting > 2 levels deep (ignore the changelog
comment about MAX_NESTED_LINKS - that is a typo).


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-25 14:59    [W:0.055 / U:36.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site