On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:26:38AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 15:02 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:18:36AM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
Make IS_POSIXACL() return false if POSIX ACL support is disabled and ignore SB_POSIXACL/MS_POSIXACL.
Never skip applying the umask in namei.c and never bother to do any ACL specific checks if the filesystem falsely indicates it has ACLs enabled when the feature is completely disabled in the kernel.
This fixes a problem where the umask is always ignored in the NFS client when compiled without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL. This is a 4 year old regression caused by commit 013cdf1088d723 which itself was not completely wrong, but failed to consider all the side effects by misdesigned VFS code.
Prior to that commit, there were two places where the umask could be applied, for example when creating a directory:
in the VFS layer in SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mkdirat), but only if !IS_POSIXACL()
again (unconditionally) in nfs3_proc_mkdir()
The first one does not apply, because even without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL, the NFS client sets MS_POSIXACL in nfs_fill_super().
Jeff, in light of the recent SB_NOUMASK work for nfs4 to always skip applying the umask how would this patch fit into the picture? Would be good to have your review here.
After that commit, (2.) was replaced by:
2b. in posix_acl_create(), called by nfs3_proc_mkdir()
There's one branch in posix_acl_create() which applies the umask; however, without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL, posix_acl_create() is an empty dummy function which does not apply the umask.
The approach chosen by this patch is to make IS_POSIXACL() always return false when POSIX ACL support is disabled, so the umask always gets applied by the VFS layer. This is consistent with the (regular) behavior of posix_acl_create(): that function returns early if IS_POSIXACL() is false, before applying the umask.
Therefore, posix_acl_create() is responsible for applying the umask if there is ACL support enabled in the file system (SB_POSIXACL), and the VFS layer is responsible for all other cases (no SB_POSIXACL or no CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL).
Reviewed-by: J. Bruce Fields bfields@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann max.kellermann@ionos.com
include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index 4aeb3fa11927..c1a4bc5c2e95 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -2110,7 +2110,12 @@ static inline bool sb_rdonly(const struct super_block *sb) { return sb->s_flags #define IS_NOQUOTA(inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_NOQUOTA) #define IS_APPEND(inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_APPEND) #define IS_IMMUTABLE(inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_IMMUTABLE)
+#ifdef CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL #define IS_POSIXACL(inode) __IS_FLG(inode, SB_POSIXACL) +#else +#define IS_POSIXACL(inode) 0 +#endif #define IS_DEADDIR(inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_DEAD)
#define IS_NOCMTIME(inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_NOCMTIME)
2.39.2
(cc'ing Trond and Anna)
To be clear, Christian is talking about this patch that I sent last week:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230911-acl-fix-v3-1-b25315333f6c@ker...
At first glance, I don't see a problem with Max's patch.
If anything the patch in the lore link above should keep NFSv4 working as expected if we take Max's patch. You might also need to add
No, it wouldn't, I think.
If I understood your correctly last week then NFS always raised SB_POSIXACL in nfs_fill_super() to prevent the VFS from applying umasks in the VFS and in fact to not apply umask at all (at least for nfs4).
If that's the case then accepting this patch would mean that the VFS wouldn't see this SB_POSIXACL flag anymore and would strip the umask in the VFS causing a regression for you.