Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Add O_DENY* support for VFS and CIFS/NFS

[Simo]

On 03/05/2013 01:13 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:49:46PM -0500, Simo wrote:
> > On 03/04/2013 04:19 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:53:25PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > [possible resend -- sorry]
> > > >
> > > > On 02/28/2013 07:25 AM, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> > > > > This patchset adds support of O_DENY* flags for Linux fs layer. These flags can be used by any application that needs share reservations to organize a file access. VFS already has some sort of this capability - now it's done through flock/LOCK_MAND mechanis, but that approach is non-atomic. This patchset build new capabilities on top of the existing one but doesn't bring any changes into the flock call semantic.
> > > > >
> > > > > These flags can be used by NFS (built-in-kernel) and CIFS (Samba) servers and Wine applications through VFS (for local filesystems) or CIFS/NFS modules. This will help when e.g. Samba and NFS server share the same directory for Windows and Linux users or Wine applications use Samba/NFS share to access the same data from different clients.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to the previous discussions the most problematic question is how to prevent situations like DoS attacks where e.g /lib/liba.so file can be open with DENYREAD, or smth like this. That's why one extra flag O_DENYMAND is added. It indicates to underlying layer that an application want to use O_DENY* flags semantic. It allows us not affect native Linux applications (that don't use O_DENYMAND flag) - so, these flags (and the semantic of open syscall that they bring) are used only for those applications that really want it proccessed that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, we have four new flags:
> > > > > O_DENYREAD - to prevent other opens with read access,
> > > > > O_DENYWRITE - to prevent other opens with write access,
> > > > > O_DENYDELETE - to prevent delete operations (this flag is not implemented in VFS and NFS part and only suitable for CIFS module),
> > > > > O_DENYMAND - to switch on/off three flags above.
> > > > O_DENYMAND doesn't deny anything.  Would a name like O_RESPECT_DENY be
> > > > better?
> > > >
> > > > Other than that, this seems like a sensible mechanism.
> > > I'm a little more worried: these are mandatory locks, and applications
> > > that use them are used to the locks being enforced correctly.  Are we
> > > sure that an application that opens a file O_DENYWRITE won't crash if it
> > > sees the file data change while it holds the open?
> > The redirector may simply assume it has full control of that part of
> > the file and not read nor send data until the lock is released too,
> > so you get conflicting views of the file contents between different
> > clients if you let a mandatory lock not be mandatory.
> >
> > > In general the idea of making a mandatory lock opt-in makes me nervous.
> > > I'd prefer something like a mount option, so that we know that everyone
> > > on that one filesystem is playing by the same rules, but we can still
> > > mount filesystems like / without the option.
> > +1
> >
> > > But I'll admit I'm definitely not an expert on Windows locking and may
> > > be missing something about how these locks are meant to work.
> > Mandatory locks really are mandatory in Windows.
> > That may not be nice to a Unix system but what can you do ?
> I wonder if we could repurpose the existing -omand mount option?
>
> That would be a problem for anyone that wants to allow mandatory fcntl
> locks without allowing share locks.  I doubt anyone sane actually uses
> mandatory fcntl locks, but still I suppose it would probably be better
> to play it safe and use a new mount option.

Maybe we should have a -o win_semantics option :-)

/me runs

Simo.
--
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/