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:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:16:58 +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: <20200616161658.GA17251@lorien.valinor.li>
References: <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>
 <20200615185311.GA702681@eldamar.local>
 <20200616023820.GB214986@pick.fieldses.org>
 <20200616024212.GC214986@pick.fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200616024212.GC214986@pick.fieldses.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Bruce,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:42:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:38:20PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed reproducer.
> > 
> > It's weird, as the server is basically just setting the transmitted
> > umask and then calling into the vfs to handle the rest, so it's not much
> > different from any other user.  But the same reproducer run just on the
> > ext4 filesystem does give the right permissions....
> > 
> > Oh, but looking at the system call, fs_namei.c:do_mkdirat(), it does:
> > 
> > 	if (!IS_POSIXACL(path.dentry->d_inode))
> > 		mode &= ~current_umask();
> > 	error = security_path_mkdir(&path, dentry, mode);
> > 	if (!error)
> > 		error = vfs_mkdir(path.dentry->d_inode, dentry, mode);
> > 
> > whereas nfsd just calls into vfs_mkdir().
> > 
> > And that IS_POSIXACL() check is exactly a check whether the filesystem
> > supports ACLs.  So I guess it's the responsibility of the caller of
> > vfs_mkdir() to handle that case.
> 
> But, that's unsatisfying: why isn't vfs_mkdir() taking care of this
> itself?  And what about that security_path_mkdir() call?  And are the
> other cases of that switch in fs/nfsd/vfs.c:nfsd_create_locked()
> correct?  I think there may be some more cleanup here called for, I'll
> poke around tomorrow.

This might be unneeded to test but as additional datapoint which
confirms the suspect: I tried check the commit around 47057abde515
("nfsd: add support for the umask attribute") in 4.10-rc1

A kernel built with 47057abde515~1, and mounting from an enough recent
client which has at least dff25ddb4808 ("nfs: add support for the
umask attribute") does not show the observed behaviour, the server
built with 47057abde515 does.

Regards,
Salvatore