Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:53:11 +0200
From:   Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
Cc:     Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com>, 962254@bugs.debian.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, agruenba@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported
 Filesystem with noacl (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2)
Message-ID: <20200615185311.GA702681@eldamar.local>
References: <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200605064426.GA1538868@eldamar.local>
 <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200605174349.GA40135@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200605183631.GA1720057@eldamar.local>
 <20200611223711.GA37917@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200613125431.GA349352@eldamar.local>
 <20200613184527.GA54221@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Bruce,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:45:27AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > I disagree with this assessment.  All of the reporters have been using
> > ZFS, but this could indicate an absence of testers using other
> > filesystems.  We need someone with a NFS server which has a 4.15+ kernel
> > and uses a different filesystem which supports ACLs.
> 
> Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so
> it's possible I could have missed something upstream.  I haven't seen
> any reports, though....
> 
> ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any in-tree
> filesystem's, and given limited time, a filesystem with no prospect of
> going upstream isn't going to get much attention, so, yes, I'd need to
> see a reproducer on xfs or ext4 or something.

I think the following is reproducible on a ext4 exported share (with
underlying filesystem mounted with noacl to mimic the suspect from the
reporter). I tested the same with an older kernel from Debian stretch
(running 4.9.210-1+deb9u1) but this does not show the same behaviour.

The current test system is running 5.6.14-2 Debian kernel (so 5.6.14).

1/ Create an ext4 filesystem:

# mkfs.ext4 /dev/vdb1

2/ Mount the filesystem with noacl (to mimic the situation):

/dev/vdb1 /srv/data ext4 defaults,noacl 0 0

root@nfs-test:~# mount | grep vdb1
/dev/vdb1 on /srv/data type ext4 (rw,relatime,noacl)

3/ Export with

/srv/data 192.168.122.1/24(rw,sync,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash)

4/ Reproduce the issue

root@nfs-test:~# mount -t nfs 192.168.122.150:/srv/data /mnt
root@nfs-test:~# mkdir /mnt/foo && ls -ld /mnt/foo && rmdir /mnt/foo
drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4096 Jun 15 20:24 /mnt/foo
root@nfs-test:~# mount | grep data
/dev/vdb1 on /srv/data type ext4 (rw,relatime,noacl)
192.168.122.150:/srv/data on /mnt type nfs4 (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=524288,wsize=524288,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=192.168.122.150,local_lock=none,addr=192.168.122.150)
root@nfs-test:~# umount /mnt

Looking at a wireshark captured sniff, the situation was the same as in the
previous ZFS case, in the gettattr from the client and the server does indicate
support for the new mode_umask. Then later in the CREATE operation, the client
sets the mode_umask attribute, with mode part set to '0777' and umask to '022'.
The mode replied is then as well '0777'.

Notabene: if not mounting the filesystem with noacl, then there is no
observed behaviour change here.

Regards,
Salvatore