Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:29:31 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu>
Cc:     "de Vandiere, Louis" <louis.devandiere@atos.net>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Maximum Number of ACL on NFSv4
Message-ID: <20190828192931.GA30217@fieldses.org>
References: <AM5PR0202MB25641230B578F7D080A67BA4E7A40@AM5PR0202MB2564.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <AM5PR0202MB2564E6F05627D0EF49D043DFE7A40@AM5PR0202MB2564.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <85fc5336-416f-2668-c9e2-8474e6e40c33@math.utexas.edu>
 <AM5PR0202MB25644F1290D20A1996C5EED4E7A10@AM5PR0202MB2564.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <20190826164600.GD28580@ndevos-x270>
 <AM5PR0202MB2564874D2AD5845AE3CD13DAE7A10@AM5PR0202MB2564.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAN-5tyHjQfrFU_iGXKSDSLnR6ywXizAqtU=5et1ESgKLCgHkAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM5PR0202MB2564D07CBF6B765EDABAAAB1E7A10@AM5PR0202MB2564.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <20190828180541.GC29148@fieldses.org>
 <CAN-5tyEth0YYiuS0oe8Q_LN-7Z8NXiF3hJPj1sL5MYCXjF-jnQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAN-5tyEth0YYiuS0oe8Q_LN-7Z8NXiF3hJPj1sL5MYCXjF-jnQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:09:03PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:06 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:28:21PM +0000, de Vandiere, Louis wrote:
> > > Thank you Olga! Somehow, I failed to look into this file although I looked in fs/nfs/ without success and I understand why now.
> > >
> > > I'd like to see it increased and be scalable like XFS is, but I understand it might impact multiple libraries. Should I open a bug/feature request somewhere?
> >
> > I wonder if it'd be OK to remove the limit completely (and then leave
> > it to the filesystem to reject if if it wants).
> >
> > It does mean we're passing an arbitrary client-supplied value to
> > kmalloc.  Is it OK to do that and just leave it to the allocator to
> > reject excessive requests, or do we risk pushing it into making heroic
> > efforts to satisfy a possibly malicious or broken client?
> >
> > I wonder if there's also a risk in passing down posix ACLs larger than
> > could have been created with the setxattr system call.
> >
> > Assuming it's still safest to have a limit....
> >
> > XATTR_LIST_MAX is a global limit on the size of xattrs.  We could try to
> > estimate how big the converted posix ACL will be and work out a maximum
> > based on that.
> 
> I agree there should be a limit and using XATTR_LIST_MAX sounds
> reasonable to me.

OK.  And, whoops, I meant to say XATTR_SIZE_MAX.  (Both are currently
64K, though.)

--b.

> 
> >
> > --b.
> >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Louis de Vandière
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu>
> > > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 2:31 PM
> > > To: de Vandiere, Louis <louis.devandiere@atos.net>
> > > Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: Maximum Number of ACL on NFSv4
> > >
> > > From fs/nfsd/acl.h
> > > /*
> > >  * Maximum ACL we'll accept from a client; chosen (somewhat
> > >  * arbitrarily) so that kmalloc'ing the ACL shouldn't require a
> > >  * high-order allocation.  This allows 204 ACEs on x86_64:
> > >  */
> > > #define NFS4_ACL_MAX ((PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct nfs4_acl)) \
> > >                         / sizeof(struct nfs4_ace))
> > >
> > > I don't know how Bruce feels about increasing that limit. Perhaps he'd be opened to a patch that increases that.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:30 PM de Vandiere, Louis <louis.devandiere@atos.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Niels, I tried your suggestion. According to the documentation (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinux.die.net%2Fman%2F8%2Fmkfs.xfs&amp;data=02%7C01%7Clouis.devandiere%40atos.net%7Ce185f99cb3ad476fd39308d72a5bf6d5%7C33440fc6b7c7412cbb730e70b0198d5a%7C0%7C0%7C637024446785324973&amp;sdata=HZbnVSzTKKCXpEv5JLgZKeEgQx5BPKeEs4SYZqRhhbk%3D&amp;reserved=0), the maximum size for the inode is 2048 byte. So I set it to this value, and faced the exact same limitation. On the other hand, when I used setfacl -m on the XFS mounted disk, I did not face any limitation and I was able to set thousands of ACLs on a single file.
> > > >
> > > > When I do a strace, I see two different types of ACL used when the system calls setxattr: system.posix_acl_default and system.nfsv4_acl. I tried to look for hardcoded limits associated with system.nfsv4_acl but I don't have much experience with C and linux kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your help.
> > > > Best,
> > > > Louis de Vandière
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Niels de Vos <ndevos@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 11:46 AM
> > > > To: de Vandiere, Louis <louis.devandiere@atos.net>
> > > > Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Maximum Number of ACL on NFSv4
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:53:05PM +0000, de Vandiere, Louis wrote:
> > > > > Yes, I assume it's not very frequent to have hundreds of NFSv4 ACLs. For compliance and organizational issue, we cannot use groups efficiently to manage access to the shares, so it's user-based and case by case.
> > > > >
> > > > > My real goal is to be able to replicate some files to a new NFSv4 server while preserving the ACLs. By using "cp -R --preserve=all acl-folder/", I'm able to preserve the ACLs when their number does not exceed 200, above it, I see the "File too large" error while rsync does not work at all (even in version 3.1.3). That's why I'm digging into this and checking what possibly could go wrong.
> > > >
> > > > You might be hitting a limit in the filesystem on the NFS server. The
> > > > ACLs are stored in extended attributes. Depending on the filesystem,
> > > > you may be able to configure larger inode sizes (or other storage for
> > > > xattrs). With XFS this can be done with 'mkfs -t xfs -i size=.. ...',
> > > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > > Niels
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Louis de Vandière
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Goetz, Patrick G <pgoetz@math.utexas.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 8:44 AM
> > > > > To: de Vandiere, Louis <louis.devandiere@atos.net>;
> > > > > linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Maximum Number of ACL on NFSv4
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm dying to know what the use case is for this, and why you can't just do this with group permissions (unless you're talking about hundreds of group ACLs).
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/23/19 5:31 PM, de Vandiere, Louis wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm currently trying to apply hundreds of ACLs on file hosted on a NFSv4 server (nfs-utils-1.3.0-0.61.el7.x86_64 and nfs4-acl-tools.0.3.3-19.el7.x86_64). It appears that the limit I can apply is 207. After the limit is reached, the command "nfs4_setfacl -a" returned the error "Failed setxattr operation: File too large". The same problem happens if I use an ACL with more than 200 line in it. I did a little debugging session but I was not able to come up with an explanation on why I'm facing such an issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the other hand, I can apply hundreds of ACLs on XFS without issue. Do you know if it could be a bug with the nfs4-acl-tools package?
> > > > > > Thank you for your support.
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Louis de Vandière
> > > > > >>> This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this <<
> > > > > >>> matters at https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinks.utexas.edu%2Frtyclf&amp;data=02%7C01%7Clouis.devandiere%40atos.net%7Ce185f99cb3ad476fd39308d72a5bf6d5%7C33440fc6b7c7412cbb730e70b0198d5a%7C0%7C0%7C637024446785324973&amp;sdata=r345rqWN4GKT0mBmQmMTnaC%2FFEyUTidjBlGeAMRdEpA%3D&amp;reserved=0.                        <<
> > > > > >