Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <07b01202-9c38-70a7-8701-be8992a1d17e@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:04:04 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ceph: support idmapped mounts
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
Cc:     Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, stgraber@ubuntu.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230608154256.562906-1-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
 <f3864ed6-8c97-8a7a-f268-dab29eb2fb21@redhat.com>
 <CAEivzxcRsHveuW3nrPnSBK6_2-eT4XPvza3kN2oogvnbVXBKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230609-alufolie-gezaubert-f18ef17cda12@brauner>
 <CAEivzxc_LW6mTKjk46WivrisnnmVQs0UnRrh6p0KxhqyXrErBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac1c6817-9838-fcf3-edc8-224ff85691e0@redhat.com>
 <CAJ4mKGby71qfb3gd696XH3AazeR0Qc_VGYupMznRH3Piky+VGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <977d8133-a55f-0667-dc12-aa6fd7d8c3e4@redhat.com>
 <CAEivzxcr99sERxZX17rZ5jW9YSzAWYvAjOOhBH+FqRoso2=yng@mail.gmail.com>
 <626175e2-ee91-0f1a-9e5d-e506aea366fa@redhat.com>
 <bb20aebe-e598-9212-1533-c777ea89948a@redhat.com>
 <CAEivzxdBoWrN1cNrotAcKrfRHg+0oajwSFT3OBAKTrjvmn=MKA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEivzxdBoWrN1cNrotAcKrfRHg+0oajwSFT3OBAKTrjvmn=MKA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 6/15/23 20:54, Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 2:29 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>   > > >
>>   > > > I thought about this too and came to the same conclusion, that
>> UID/GID
>>   > > > based
>>   > > > restriction can be applied dynamically, so detecting it on mount-time
>>   > > > helps not so much.
>>   > > >
>>   > > For this you please raise one PR to ceph first to support this, and in
>>   > > the PR we can discuss more for the MDS auth caps. And after the PR
>>   > > getting merged then in this patch series you need to check the
>>   > > corresponding option or flag to determine whether could the idmap
>>   > > mounting succeed.
>>   >
>>   > I'm sorry but I don't understand what we want to support here. Do we
>> want to
>>   > add some new ceph request that allows to check if UID/GID-based
>>   > permissions are applied for
>>   > a particular ceph client user?
>>
>> IMO we should prevent users to set UID/GID-based MDS auth caps from ceph
>> side. And users should know what has happened.
> ok, we want to restrict setting of UID/GID-based permissions if there is an
> idmapped mount on the client. IMHO, idmapping mounts is truly a
> client-side feature
> and server modification looks a bit strange to me.

Yeah, agree.

But without fixing the lookup issue in kclient side it will be buggy and 
may make some tests fail too.

We need to support this more smoothly.

Thanks

- Xiubo

>> Once users want to support the idmap mounts they should know that the
>> MDS auth caps won't work anymore.
> They will work, but permission rule configuration should include
> non-mapped UID/GID-s.
> As I mentioned here [1] it's already the case even without mount idmappings.
>
> It would be great to discuss this thing as a concept and synchronize
> our understanding of this
> before going into modification of a server side.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAEivzxcBBJV6DOGzy5S7=TUjrXZfVaGaJX5z7WFzYq1w4MdtiA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> - Xiubo
>>