Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:19:04 -0800 From: Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com> To: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> Subject: Re: NFS exports of ZFS snapshots broken Message-ID: <CAM5tNy6jqH3nRrtAhTaOpAR1RCXKxygSKHtDMKeQStDnkC1skg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AD48F344-DDD1-476F-B353-B0F5C05C9808@karels.net> References: <25943.60056.880614.452966@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <DDC3BBBB-561A-4779-B076-83EC054859C2@karels.net> <CAM5tNy6gcThf0nrcs4iC8r6J8cMFOHdUNcUjfJVDSpTW_tqXKQ@mail.gmail.com> <ACAFC3CD-0024-4076-8C69-CAA3B1550B41@karels.net> <AB4690A9-A8F4-490B-82AA-358CD8118DF0@karels.net> <CAM5tNy5LGWF424i9v_w2u%2B41wtzmW9kn6RZWwo6Pi0Y4wj92UA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5tNy6K6psrtem%2Bc3ta0pM-7fhy9LYci0DEeR0O-EF%2B-iGo6Q@mail.gmail.com> <91988E23-ED50-4379-AA5F-4B069E08D80F@karels.net> <CAM5tNy68tq24C_BA0xNYM-xUbCzpAve0jY-gsr42ixQLHR5gHg@mail.gmail.com> <AD48F344-DDD1-476F-B353-B0F5C05C9808@karels.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--00000000000071e6ce060a78d585
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:43=E2=80=AFPM Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> wrote=
:
>
> On 18 Nov 2023, at 17:23, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 2:27=E2=80=AFPM Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> w=
rote:
> >>
> >> On 18 Nov 2023, at 15:58, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:09=E2=80=AFAM Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:19=E2=80=AFPM Mike Karels <mike@karels.net=
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 22:14, Mike Karels wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 21:24, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most of the changes in stable/13 that are not in releng/13.2
> >>>>>>> are the "make it work in a jail" stuff. Unfortunately, they are
> >>>>>>> a large # of changes (mostly trivial edits adding vnet macros),
> >>>>>>> but it also includes export check changes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have attached a trivial patch that I think disables the export
> >>>>>>> checks for jails. If either of you can try it and see if it fixes
> >>>>>>> the problem, that would be great.
> >>>>>>> (Note that this is only for testing, although it probably does no=
t
> >>>>>>> matter unless you are running nfsd(8) in vnet jails.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I can see snapshots with the patch. This system is just a te=
st
> >>>>>> system that doesn't normally run ZFS or NFS, so no problem messing
> >>>>>> with permissions. It's a bhyve VM, so I just added a small disk a=
nd
> >>>>>> enabled ZFS for testing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> btw, you might try to get mm@ or maybe mav@ to help out from the ZF=
S
> >>>>> side. It must be doing something differently inside a snapshot tha=
n
> >>>>> outside, maybe with file handles or something like that.
> >>>> Yes. I've added freebsd-current@ (although Garrett is not on it, he =
is
> >>>> cc'd) and these guys specifically...
> >>>>
> >>>> So, here's what appears to be the problem...
> >>>> Commit 88175af (in main and stable/13, but not 13.2) added checks fo=
r
> >>>> nfsd(8) running in jails by filling in mnt_exjail with a reference t=
o the cred
> >>>> used when the file system is exported.
> >>>> When mnt_exjail is found NULL, the current nfsd code assumes that th=
ere
> >>>> is no access allowed for the mount.
> >>>>
> >>>> My vague understanding is that when a ZFS snapshot is accessed, it i=
s
> >>>> "pseudo-mounted" by zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() and I am guessing that
> >>>> mnt_exjail is NULL as a result.
> >>>> Since I do not know the ZFS code and don't even have an easy way to
> >>>> test this (thankfully Mike can test easily), I do not know what to d=
o from
> >>>> here?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a "struct mount" constructed for this pseudo mount
> >>>> (or it actually appears to be the lookup of ".." that fails, so it
> >>>> might be the parent of the snapshot subdir?)?
> >>>>
> >>>> One thought is that I can check to see if the mount pointer is in th=
e
> >>>> mountlist (I don't think the snapshot's mount is in the mountlist) a=
nd
> >>>> avoid the jail test for this case. This would assume that snapshots=
are
> >>>> always within the file system(s) exported via that jail (which inclu=
des
> >>>> the case of prison0, of course), so that they do not need a separate
> >>>> jail check.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this doesn't work, there will need to be some sort of messing abo=
ut
> >>>> in ZFS to set mnt_exjail for these.
> >>> Ok, so now onto the hard part...
> >>> Thanks to Mike and others, I did create a snapshot under .zfs and I c=
an
> >>> see the problem. It is that mnt_exjail =3D=3D NULL.
> >>> Now, is there a way that this "struct mount" can be recognized as "sp=
ecial"
> >>> for snapshots, so I can avoid the mnt_exjail =3D=3D NULL test?
> >>> (I had hoped that "mp->mnt_list.tqe_prev" would be NULL, but that is =
not
> >>> the case.)
> >>
> >> Dumb question, is the mount point (mp presumably) different between th=
e
> >> snapshot and the main file system?
> > Not a dump question and the answer is rather interesting...
> > It is "sometimes" or "usually" according to my printf().
> > It seems that when you first "cd <snapshot-name"" you get a different m=
p
> > where mnt_exjail =3D=3D NULL.. Then when you look at directories within=
the
> > snapshot, you get the mp of the file system that .zfs exists in, which =
does
> > have mnt_exjail set non-NULL.
> >
> > There is this snippet of code in zfsctl_snapdir_lookup():
> > /*
> > * Fix up the root vnode mounted on .zfs/snapshot/<snapname>.
> > *
> > * This is where we lie about our v_vfsp in order to
> > * make .zfs/snapshot/<snapname> accessible over NFS
> > * without requiring manual mounts of <snapname>.
> > */
> > ASSERT3P(VTOZ(*vpp)->z_zfsvfs, !=3D, zfsvfs);
> > VTOZ(*vpp)->z_zfsvfs->z_parent =3D zfsvfs;
> >
> > /* Clear the root flag (set via VFS_ROOT) as well. */
> > (*vpp)->v_vflag &=3D ~VV_ROOT;
> > which seems to set the mp to that of the parent, but it
> > seems this does not happen for the initial lookup of
> > the <snapname>?
> >
> > I'll note that there is code before this in
> > zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() for handling cases
> > like "." and ".." that return without doing this.
> >
> > Now, why does this work without the mnt_exjail
> > check (as in 13.2)?
> > I am not quite sure, but there is this "cheat" in the
> > NFS server (it has been there for years, maybe decades):
> > /*
> > * Allow a Lookup, Getattr, GetFH, Secinfo on an
> > * non-exported directory if
> > * nfs_rootfhset. Do I need to allow any other Ops?
> > * (You can only have a non-exported vpnes if
> > * nfs_rootfhset is true. See nfsd_fhtovp())
> > * Allow AUTH_SYS to be used for file systems
> > * exported GSS only for certain Ops, to allow
> > * clients to do mounts more easily.
> > */
> > if (nfsv4_opflag[op].needscfh && vp) {
> > if (!NFSVNO_EXPORTED(&vpnes) &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_LOOKUP &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_GETATTR &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_GETFH &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_ACCESS &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_READLINK &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_SECINFO &&
> > op !=3D NFSV4OP_SECINFONONAME)
> > nd->nd_repstat =3D NFSERR_NOFILEHANDLE;
> > This allows certain operations to be done on
> > non-exported file systems and I think that is enough
> > to allow this to work when mnt_exjail is not checked.
> > (Note that NFSV4OP_LOOKUPP is not in the list,
> > which might explain why it is the one that fails for
> > Garrett. I don't think it can be added to this list
> > safely, since that would allow a client to move above
> > the exported file system into "uncharted territory".)
> >
> >> Just curious. Also, what is mnt_exjail
> >> normally set to for file systems not in a jail?
> > mnt_exjail is set to the credentials of the thread/process
> > that exported the file system (usually mountd(8)).
> > When not in a jail, cr_prison for these credentials
> > points to prison0.
> >
> > Btw, I checked and the "other mp that has mnt_exjail =3D=3D NULL
> > is in the mountlist, so the idea of checking "not in mountlist"
> > is a dead end.
> >
> > I am looking for something "unique" about this other mp,
> > but haven't found anything yet.
> > Alternately, it might be necessary to add code to
> > zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() to "cheat and change the mp"
> > in more cases, such as "." and ".." lookups?
>
> It seems to me that if ZFS is creating an additional mount structure,
> it should be responsible for setting it up correctly. That could
> involve a vfs-level routine to do some of the cloning. In any case,
> it seems to me that mnt_exjail should be set properly, e.g. by duping
> the one in the original mount structure. Probably ZFS is the only
> file system type that would need this added.
I've created a patch that I think does this. It seemed to test ok for my ca=
se.
It's in D42672 on reviews.freebsd.org.
I have also attached it here (this diff doesn't use -U999999, so it might b=
e
easier to apply).
Hopefully this fixes the problem. Sorry for the breakage.
rick
>
> Mike
>
> > rick
> > ps: I added all the cc's back in because I want the
> > ZFS folk to hopefully chime in.
> >
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>> Do I need to search mountlist for it?
> >>>
> >>> rick
> >>> ps: The hack patch attached should fix the problem, but can only be
> >>> safely used if mountd/nfsd are not run in any jails.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I will try and get a test setup going here, which leads me to..
> >>>> how do I create a ZFS snapshot? (I do have a simple ZFS pool running
> >>>> on a test machine, but I've never done a snapshot.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Although this problem is not in 13.2, it will have shipped in 14.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any help with be appreciated, rick
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> rick
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:14=E2=80=AFPM Mike Karels <mike@karels.=
net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of=
Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the se=
nder and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails t=
o IThelp@uoguelph.ca.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rick, have you been following this thread on freebsd-stable? I =
have been able
> >>>>>>>> to reproduce this using a 13-stable server from Oct 7 and a 15-c=
urrent system
> >>>>>>>> that is up to date using NFSv3. I did not reproduce with a 13.2=
server. The
> >>>>>>>> client was running 13.2. Any ideas? A full bisect seems fairly=
painful, but
> >>>>>>>> maybe you have an idea of points to try. Fortunately, these are=
all test
> >>>>>>>> systems that I can reboot at will.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Forwarded message:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>
> >>>>>>>>> To: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net>
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: NFS exports of ZFS snapshots broken
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 17:35:04 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <<On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:57:42 -0600, Mike Karels <mike@karels.=
net> said:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have not run into this, so I tried it just now. I had no pr=
oblem.
> >>>>>>>>>> The server is 13.2, fully patched, the client is up-to-date -c=
urrent,
> >>>>>>>>>> and the mount is v4.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On my 13.2 client and 13-stable server, I see:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL open(0x237d32f9a000,0x120004<O_RDONLY|O_N=
ONBLOCK|O_DIRECTORY|O_CLOEXEC>)
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls NAMI "/mnt/tools/.zfs/snapshot/weekly-2023-45"
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET open 4
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL fcntl(0x4,F_ISUNIONSTACK,0x0)
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET fcntl 0
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL getdirentries(0x4,0x237d32faa000,0x1000,0=
x237d32fa7028)
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET getdirentries -1 errno 5 Input/output err=
or
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL close(0x4)
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET close 0
> >>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL exit(0)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Certainly a libc bug here that getdirentries(2) returning [EIO]
> >>>>>>>>> results in ls(1) returning EXIT_SUCCESS, but the [EIO] error is
> >>>>>>>>> consistent across both FreeBSD and Linux clients.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Looking at this from the RPC side:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR, LOOKUP(snapshotname), GETFH, GETATTR)
> >>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK for all ops]
> >>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR)
> >>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK]
> >>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, ACCESS(0x3f), GETATTR)
> >>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK, rights =3D 0x03, NFS4_OK]
> >>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR, LOOKUPP, GETFH, GETATTR)
> >>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK, NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and at this point the [EIO] is returned.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It seems that clients always do a LOOKUPP before calling READDI=
R, and
> >>>>>>>>> this is failing when the subject file handle is the snapshot. =
The
> >>>>>>>>> client is perfectly able to *traverse into* the snapshot: if I =
try to
> >>>>>>>>> list a subdirectory I know exists in the snapshot, the client i=
s able to
> >>>>>>>>> LOOKUP(dirname) just fine, but LOOKUPP still fails with
> >>>>>>>>> NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE *on the subndirectory*.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -GAWollman
> >>>>>>>>
--00000000000071e6ce060a78d585
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="zfssnap.patch"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="zfssnap.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <f_lp4wse5y0>
X-Attachment-Id: f_lp4wse5y0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--00000000000071e6ce060a78d585--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAM5tNy6jqH3nRrtAhTaOpAR1RCXKxygSKHtDMKeQStDnkC1skg>