Re: [NFS] [PATCH] RPC: add wrapper for svc_reserve to account forchecksum

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:14:11PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Saturday April 21, jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > When the kernel calls svc_reserve to downsize the expected size of an RPC
> > reply, it fails to account for the possibility of a checksum at the end of
> > the packet. If a client mounts a NFSv2/3 with sec=krb5i/p, and does I/O then
> > you'll generally see messages similar to this in the server's ring buffer:
> > 
> > RPC request reserved 164 but used 208
> > 
> > While I was never able to verify it, I suspect that this problem is also the
> > root cause of some oopses I've seen under these conditions:
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227726
> 
> I don't think to two are that closely related.
> The space reservation mentioned in the "RPC request reserved ..."
> messages is a fairly soft reservation.  We try to make sure the
> network stack reserves a certain amount of space, then try never to
> start processing a request unless we will be able to reply without
> exceeding that allocation.
> If we get it wrong and do exceed the allocation, the worst that might
> happen is that we might block while writing the reply and maybe have
> to close a connection, or send out an incomplete packet, or something
> like that.  Certainly not an oops.
> 
> The extra space needed at the end of the message of integrity
> information which we weren't accounting for properly does seemed to be
> accounted correctly in svcauth_gss_wrap_resp_integ (I'm less sure of
> _wrp_resp_priv, but it is probably right).
> 
> Of the two Oops in that BUG, the first seems to be the
> 		BUG_ON(resbuf->tail[0].iov_len);
> in svcauth_gss_wrap_resp_integ (assuming code in 2.6.9-44.ELxenU is at
> least vaguely similar to current -mm).
> 
> I don't think this BUG_ON is correct.  If a readdir finds zero entries,
> then will be some trailer information in the 'tail', but page_len will
> be 0.  I think the following patch is correct and could fix that.
> Bruce:  does it look OK to you?
> 
> 
> The second oops is harder to interpret.
> I looks like tcp_send_page is getting a NULL page, though it could be
> getting a length > PAGE_SIZE which might have the same effect.
> 
> It reminds me of
>   http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7795
> but I'm not convinced it is the same.
> 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a good way to reliably determine the
> > expected checksum length prior to actually calculating it, particularly with
> > schemes like spkm3.
> 
> Yes, that asn1 encoding does seem rather awkward.
> 
> Maybe we should just use RPC_MAX_AUTH_SIZE like other bits of GSS code
> does.  There is no great cost in reserving too much space - it just
> might slow things down a little when tight on memory.
> What would you think of submitting an incremental patch which replaces
> the "56" with "RPC_MAX_AUTH_SIZE" ?
> 
> Thanks (and sorry for the delay).
> NeilBrown
> 

Thanks for looking into this, Neil. I wasn't sure how hard a reservation that
was (still working on wrapping my brain around the RPC code). I'll have a look
at the patch you posted. Hopefully that is the problem...

As far as your suggestion to use RPC_MAX_AUTH_SIZE, that sounds like a good
idea to me. I'm all for avoiding "magic" numbers. How does this look? I also
cleaned up the comments as well.

diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h
index 9114f11..ed7cbf1 100644
--- a/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h
+++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h
@@ -399,10 +399,9 @@ char *		   svc_print_addr(struct svc_rqst *, char *, size_t);
 /*
  * When we want to reduce the size of the reserved space in the response
  * buffer, we need to take into account the size of any checksum data that
- * may be at the end of the packet. For now, just use a hardcoded value
- * for each possible authflavor. This will need to be updated when new
- * encryption types or algorithms are added, or we'll have to come up with
- * a way to reasonably calculate this on the fly (maybe via a new auth_op).
+ * may be at the end of the packet. This is difficult to determine exactly
+ * for all cases without actually generating the checksum, so we just use a
+ * static value.
  */
 static inline void 
 svc_reserve_auth(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, int space)
@@ -411,7 +410,7 @@ svc_reserve_auth(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, int space)
 
 	switch(rqstp->rq_authop->flavour) {
 		case RPC_AUTH_GSS:
-			added_space = 56; /* determined empirically */
+			added_space = RPC_MAX_AUTH_SIZE;
 	}
 	return svc_reserve(rqstp, space + added_space);
 }
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/