On 18 Nov 2023, at 21:19, Rick Macklem wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:43 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Nov 2023, at 17:23, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 2:27 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Nov 2023, at 15:58, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:09 AM Rick Macklem <rick.mack...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:19 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 22:14, Mike Karels wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 21:24, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most of the changes in stable/13 that are not in releng/13.2
>>>>>>>>> are the "make it work in a jail" stuff. Unfortunately, they are
>>>>>>>>> a large # of changes (mostly trivial edits adding vnet macros),
>>>>>>>>> but it also includes export check changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have attached a trivial patch that I think disables the export
>>>>>>>>> checks for jails. If either of you can try it and see if it fixes
>>>>>>>>> the problem, that would be great.
>>>>>>>>> (Note that this is only for testing, although it probably does not
>>>>>>>>> matter unless you are running nfsd(8) in vnet jails.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I can see snapshots with the patch. This system is just a test
>>>>>>>> system that doesn't normally run ZFS or NFS, so no problem messing
>>>>>>>> with permissions. It's a bhyve VM, so I just added a small disk and
>>>>>>>> enabled ZFS for testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> btw, you might try to get mm@ or maybe mav@ to help out from the ZFS
>>>>>>> side. It must be doing something differently inside a snapshot than
>>>>>>> outside, maybe with file handles or something like that.
>>>>>> Yes. I've added freebsd-current@ (although Garrett is not on it, he is
>>>>>> cc'd) and these guys specifically...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, here's what appears to be the problem...
>>>>>> Commit 88175af (in main and stable/13, but not 13.2) added checks for
>>>>>> nfsd(8) running in jails by filling in mnt_exjail with a reference to
>>>>>> the cred
>>>>>> used when the file system is exported.
>>>>>> When mnt_exjail is found NULL, the current nfsd code assumes that there
>>>>>> is no access allowed for the mount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My vague understanding is that when a ZFS snapshot is accessed, it is
>>>>>> "pseudo-mounted" by zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() and I am guessing that
>>>>>> mnt_exjail is NULL as a result.
>>>>>> Since I do not know the ZFS code and don't even have an easy way to
>>>>>> test this (thankfully Mike can test easily), I do not know what to do
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a "struct mount" constructed for this pseudo mount
>>>>>> (or it actually appears to be the lookup of ".." that fails, so it
>>>>>> might be the parent of the snapshot subdir?)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thought is that I can check to see if the mount pointer is in the
>>>>>> mountlist (I don't think the snapshot's mount is in the mountlist) and
>>>>>> avoid the jail test for this case. This would assume that snapshots are
>>>>>> always within the file system(s) exported via that jail (which includes
>>>>>> the case of prison0, of course), so that they do not need a separate
>>>>>> jail check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this doesn't work, there will need to be some sort of messing about
>>>>>> in ZFS to set mnt_exjail for these.
>>>>> Ok, so now onto the hard part...
>>>>> Thanks to Mike and others, I did create a snapshot under .zfs and I can
>>>>> see the problem. It is that mnt_exjail == NULL.
>>>>> Now, is there a way that this "struct mount" can be recognized as
>>>>> "special"
>>>>> for snapshots, so I can avoid the mnt_exjail == NULL test?
>>>>> (I had hoped that "mp->mnt_list.tqe_prev" would be NULL, but that is not
>>>>> the case.)
>>>>
>>>> Dumb question, is the mount point (mp presumably) different between the
>>>> snapshot and the main file system?
>>> Not a dump question and the answer is rather interesting...
>>> It is "sometimes" or "usually" according to my printf().
>>> It seems that when you first "cd <snapshot-name"" you get a different mp
>>> where mnt_exjail == NULL.. Then when you look at directories within the
>>> snapshot, you get the mp of the file system that .zfs exists in, which does
>>> have mnt_exjail set non-NULL.
>>>
>>> There is this snippet of code in zfsctl_snapdir_lookup():
>>> /*
>>> * Fix up the root vnode mounted on .zfs/snapshot/<snapname>.
>>> *
>>> * This is where we lie about our v_vfsp in order to
>>> * make .zfs/snapshot/<snapname> accessible over NFS
>>> * without requiring manual mounts of <snapname>.
>>> */
>>> ASSERT3P(VTOZ(*vpp)->z_zfsvfs, !=, zfsvfs);
>>> VTOZ(*vpp)->z_zfsvfs->z_parent = zfsvfs;
>>>
>>> /* Clear the root flag (set via VFS_ROOT) as well. */
>>> (*vpp)->v_vflag &= ~VV_ROOT;
>>> which seems to set the mp to that of the parent, but it
>>> seems this does not happen for the initial lookup of
>>> the <snapname>?
>>>
>>> I'll note that there is code before this in
>>> zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() for handling cases
>>> like "." and ".." that return without doing this.
>>>
>>> Now, why does this work without the mnt_exjail
>>> check (as in 13.2)?
>>> I am not quite sure, but there is this "cheat" in the
>>> NFS server (it has been there for years, maybe decades):
>>> /*
>>> * Allow a Lookup, Getattr, GetFH, Secinfo on an
>>> * non-exported directory if
>>> * nfs_rootfhset. Do I need to allow any other Ops?
>>> * (You can only have a non-exported vpnes if
>>> * nfs_rootfhset is true. See nfsd_fhtovp())
>>> * Allow AUTH_SYS to be used for file systems
>>> * exported GSS only for certain Ops, to allow
>>> * clients to do mounts more easily.
>>> */
>>> if (nfsv4_opflag[op].needscfh && vp) {
>>> if (!NFSVNO_EXPORTED(&vpnes) &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_LOOKUP &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_GETATTR &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_GETFH &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_ACCESS &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_READLINK &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_SECINFO &&
>>> op != NFSV4OP_SECINFONONAME)
>>> nd->nd_repstat = NFSERR_NOFILEHANDLE;
>>> This allows certain operations to be done on
>>> non-exported file systems and I think that is enough
>>> to allow this to work when mnt_exjail is not checked.
>>> (Note that NFSV4OP_LOOKUPP is not in the list,
>>> which might explain why it is the one that fails for
>>> Garrett. I don't think it can be added to this list
>>> safely, since that would allow a client to move above
>>> the exported file system into "uncharted territory".)
>>>
>>>> Just curious. Also, what is mnt_exjail
>>>> normally set to for file systems not in a jail?
>>> mnt_exjail is set to the credentials of the thread/process
>>> that exported the file system (usually mountd(8)).
>>> When not in a jail, cr_prison for these credentials
>>> points to prison0.
>>>
>>> Btw, I checked and the "other mp that has mnt_exjail == NULL
>>> is in the mountlist, so the idea of checking "not in mountlist"
>>> is a dead end.
>>>
>>> I am looking for something "unique" about this other mp,
>>> but haven't found anything yet.
>>> Alternately, it might be necessary to add code to
>>> zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() to "cheat and change the mp"
>>> in more cases, such as "." and ".." lookups?
>>
>> It seems to me that if ZFS is creating an additional mount structure,
>> it should be responsible for setting it up correctly. That could
>> involve a vfs-level routine to do some of the cloning. In any case,
>> it seems to me that mnt_exjail should be set properly, e.g. by duping
>> the one in the original mount structure. Probably ZFS is the only
>> file system type that would need this added.
> I've created a patch that I think does this. It seemed to test ok for my case.
> It's in D42672 on reviews.freebsd.org.
> I have also attached it here (this diff doesn't use -U999999, so it might be
> easier to apply).
It works for me in 13-stable, and looks plausible.
Mike
> Hopefully this fixes the problem. Sorry for the breakage.
>
> rick
>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>> rick
>>> ps: I added all the cc's back in because I want the
>>> ZFS folk to hopefully chime in.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>> Do I need to search mountlist for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> rick
>>>>> ps: The hack patch attached should fix the problem, but can only be
>>>>> safely used if mountd/nfsd are not run in any jails.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will try and get a test setup going here, which leads me to..
>>>>>> how do I create a ZFS snapshot? (I do have a simple ZFS pool running
>>>>>> on a test machine, but I've never done a snapshot.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although this problem is not in 13.2, it will have shipped in 14.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help with be appreciated, rick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:14 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of
>>>>>>>>>> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>>>>>>>>>> the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward
>>>>>>>>>> suspicious emails to ith...@uoguelph.ca.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rick, have you been following this thread on freebsd-stable? I have
>>>>>>>>>> been able
>>>>>>>>>> to reproduce this using a 13-stable server from Oct 7 and a
>>>>>>>>>> 15-current system
>>>>>>>>>> that is up to date using NFSv3. I did not reproduce with a 13.2
>>>>>>>>>> server. The
>>>>>>>>>> client was running 13.2. Any ideas? A full bisect seems fairly
>>>>>>>>>> painful, but
>>>>>>>>>> maybe you have an idea of points to try. Fortunately, these are all
>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>> systems that I can reboot at will.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Garrett Wollman <woll...@bimajority.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Mike Karels <m...@karels.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: NFS exports of ZFS snapshots broken
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 17:35:04 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <<On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:57:42 -0600, Mike Karels <m...@karels.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not run into this, so I tried it just now. I had no
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The server is 13.2, fully patched, the client is up-to-date
>>>>>>>>>>>> -current,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the mount is v4.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On my 13.2 client and 13-stable server, I see:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL
>>>>>>>>>>> open(0x237d32f9a000,0x120004<O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_DIRECTORY|O_CLOEXEC>)
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls NAMI "/mnt/tools/.zfs/snapshot/weekly-2023-45"
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET open 4
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL fcntl(0x4,F_ISUNIONSTACK,0x0)
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET fcntl 0
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL
>>>>>>>>>>> getdirentries(0x4,0x237d32faa000,0x1000,0x237d32fa7028)
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET getdirentries -1 errno 5 Input/output error
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL close(0x4)
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET close 0
>>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL exit(0)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly a libc bug here that getdirentries(2) returning [EIO]
>>>>>>>>>>> results in ls(1) returning EXIT_SUCCESS, but the [EIO] error is
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent across both FreeBSD and Linux clients.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at this from the RPC side:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR, LOOKUP(snapshotname), GETFH, GETATTR)
>>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK for all ops]
>>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR)
>>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK]
>>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, ACCESS(0x3f), GETATTR)
>>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK, rights = 0x03, NFS4_OK]
>>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR, LOOKUPP, GETFH, GETATTR)
>>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK, NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and at this point the [EIO] is returned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that clients always do a LOOKUPP before calling READDIR,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> this is failing when the subject file handle is the snapshot. The
>>>>>>>>>>> client is perfectly able to *traverse into* the snapshot: if I try
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> list a subdirectory I know exists in the snapshot, the client is
>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>> LOOKUP(dirname) just fine, but LOOKUPP still fails with
>>>>>>>>>>> NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE *on the subndirectory*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -GAWollman
>>>>>>>>>>
