From: Brian De Wolf Subject: Re: nfs4_getfacl "Failed getxattr operation" when too many ACLentries exist Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:31:35 -0700 Message-ID: <47FFF4D7.5080704@csupomona.edu> References: <47FE8C68.50502@csupomona.edu> <20080411193320.GC16965@fieldses.org> <47FFDB69.8030504@csupomona.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "david m. richter" Return-path: Received: from sparky.unx.csupomona.edu ([134.71.247.19]:43861 "EHLO sparky.unx.csupomona.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755827AbYDKXbg (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:31:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/11/08 15:26, david m. richter wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Brian De Wolf wrote: > >> On 04/11/08 12:33, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 06:41:18PM -0400, david m. richter wrote: >>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, david m. richter wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Brian De Wolf wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Recently we've been prototyping serving Solaris ZFS exports via NFSv4 >>>>>> to some >>>>>> Linux hosts. These will some day be exposed to general users, so I've >>>>>> been >>>>>> testing things to see if I can break them. Anyway, it seems that >>>>>> nfs4_getfacl >>>>>> is only able to read ACLs with up to 208 entries. nfs4_setfacl is >>>>>> able to >>>>>> insert a 209th entry, but any attempts to view or edit the ACLs after >>>>>> that >>>>>> fail with: >>>>>> >>>>>> Failed getxattr operation >>>>>> : Input/output error >>>>>> >>>>>> There are two ways to make the ACLs readable again: >>>>>> 1) Have someone log in to the Solaris box and remove some of the >>>>>> entries >>>>>> 2) Reset the ACLs using nfs4_setfacl -s `some spec` >>>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone run into this issue before? Is it fixable? I didn't reach >>>>>> the >>>>>> same problem locally on the Solaris box, nor on another Solaris box >>>>>> with the >>>>>> same NFS mount, so it looks like it's a problem specific to Linux. >>>>>> Here's the >>>>>> versions of relevant packages on the test box running Gentoo (did I >>>>>> miss >>>>>> any?): >>>>>> Kernel: 2.6.23-gentoo-r8 >>>>>> nfs-utils-1.1.0-r1 >>>>>> attr-2.4.39 >>>>>> nfs4-acl-tools-0.3.2 >>>>> honestly, this probably stems from some naive, unrevisited >>>>> assumptions still lingering nfs4-acl-tools code that need fixing. at >>>>> the -very- least, nfs4_setfacl could save the original ACL and attempt >>>>> to restore it if the setxattr() call fails. >>>> sorry, misread part of your letter the first time around -- it'd be >>>> very bizarre if nfs4_getfacl influenced the ACL in any way, so i suspect >>>> that something's going awry with nfs4_setfacl. seeing such an arbitrary >>>> limit of 208 or 209 ACEs looks like the tools being dumb. >>> I haven't looked at this code in a while. From a quick look.... It >>> appears the kernel limits ACLs to 64K (xdr-encoded). One ACE has length >>> >>> 16 + (length of user/group name rounded up to multiple of 4) >> More or less, yes. An strace of the ruleset "A::OWNER@:" yields a getxattr >> buffer size of 28 bytes. >> >>> But to be hitting that limit with 208 entries I think you'd have to have >>> user/group names (including domain) of about 300 characters. >> Unfortunately not. With 209 lines of "A::OWNER@:", it breaks. 208 lines of >> this makes a getxattr buffer of size 4996. If I use "A::EVERYONE@:", it ends >> up breaking at 180 lines. At 179 lines, this requires a buffer of 4988 bytes. >> It looks like there might be a ceiling at 5000 bytes? > > oh good, i was going to ask this very thing :) > > >>> Anyway, strace'ing nfs4_getfacl/nfs4_setfacl would verify whether the >>> error was coming from the kernel or the tools. >> This is when the attributes list is too long: >> >> getxattr("hello", "system.nfs4_acl"..., 0x0, 0) = -1 EIO (Input/output error) >> >> I couldn't find a mention of EIO in the man pages for getxattr(2) or stat(2). > > yup, i had the same thought; the manpages don't have the whole > story. glancing through, it looks like there are some ways that NFS could > end up returning an EIO that'd percolate back through sys_getxattr() .. > > if you would, could you get a tcpdump of both the > nfs4_setfacl-setting-a-too-long-ACL and the subsequent > nfs4_getfacl-barfs-up-EIO problems? please use a snaplen of 0 just to > make sure the payloads come through. you can email it to me, if you like. > Alright, I'll send it to you off-list in a minute. >>> I have to ask: how many acl entries do you need? >> We don't plan on using huge ACLs, but it's nice to know they'll work if >> someone tries to use them. If I could limit the maximum number of ACL entries >> to something smaller, I would have done that instead, but it's not >> configurable. > > the 64K size limit (linux/limits.h) goes for all individual > xattrs, so there's some ceiling, but that ceiling should be a long way > off. if you can gin up that tcpdump capture, that'd be great. > > > thanks, > > d > .