From: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Olga Kornievskaia <okorniev@redhat.com>,
Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Fix NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS and NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS_ON_ROOT
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 00:29:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241006222918.jnf4odeoyq6u7l5m@pali> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <172825279728.1692160.16291277027217742776@noble.neil.brown.name>
On Monday 07 October 2024 09:13:17 NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2024, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 08:52:20AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2024, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Currently NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS and NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS_ON_ROOT do not bypass
> > > > only GSS, but bypass any authentication method. This is problem specially
> > > > for NFS3 AUTH_NULL-only exports.
> > > >
> > > > The purpose of NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS_ON_ROOT is described in RFC 2623,
> > > > section 2.3.2, to allow mounting NFS2/3 GSS-only export without
> > > > authentication. So few procedures which do not expose security risk used
> > > > during mount time can be called also with AUTH_NONE or AUTH_SYS, to allow
> > > > client mount operation to finish successfully.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with current implementation is that for AUTH_NULL-only exports,
> > > > the NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS_ON_ROOT is active also for NFS3 AUTH_UNIX mount
> > > > attempts which confuse NFS3 clients, and make them think that AUTH_UNIX is
> > > > enabled and is working. Linux NFS3 client never switches from AUTH_UNIX to
> > > > AUTH_NONE on active mount, which makes the mount inaccessible.
> > > >
> > > > Fix the NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS and NFSD_MAY_BYPASS_GSS_ON_ROOT implementation
> > > > and really allow to bypass only exports which have some GSS auth flavor
> > > > enabled.
> > > >
> > > > The result would be: For AUTH_NULL-only export if client attempts to do
> > > > mount with AUTH_UNIX flavor then it will receive access errors, which
> > > > instruct client that AUTH_UNIX flavor is not usable and will either try
> > > > other auth flavor (AUTH_NULL if enabled) or fails mount procedure.
> > > >
> > > > This should fix problems with AUTH_NULL-only or AUTH_UNIX-only exports if
> > > > client attempts to mount it with other auth flavor (e.g. with AUTH_NULL for
> > > > AUTH_UNIX-only export, or with AUTH_UNIX for AUTH_NULL-only export).
> > >
> > > The MAY_BYPASS_GSS flag currently also bypasses TLS restrictions. With
> > > your change it doesn't. I don't think we want to make that change.
> >
> > Neil, I'm not seeing this, I must be missing something.
> >
> > RPC_AUTH_TLS is used only on NULL procedures.
> >
> > The export's xprtsec= setting determines whether a TLS session must
> > be present to access the files on the export. If the TLS session
> > meets the xprtsec= policy, then the normal user authentication
> > settings apply. In other words, I don't think execution gets close
> > to check_nfsd_access() unless the xprtsec policy setting is met.
>
> check_nfsd_access() is literally the ONLY place that ->ex_xprtsec_modes
> is tested and that seems to be where xprtsec= export settings are stored.
>
> >
> > I'm not convinced check_nfsd_access() needs to care about
> > RPC_AUTH_TLS. Can you expand a little on your concern?
>
> Probably it doesn't care about RPC_AUTH_TLS which as you say is only
> used on NULL procedures when setting up the TLS connection.
>
> But it *does* care about NFS_XPRTSEC_MTLS etc.
>
> But I now see that RPC_AUTH_TLS is never reported by OP_SECINFO as an
> acceptable flavour, so the client cannot dynamically determine that TLS
> is required.
Why is not RPC_AUTH_TLS announced in NFS4 OP_SECINFO? Should not NFS4
OP_SECINFO report all possible auth methods for particular filehandle?
> So there is no value in giving non-tls clients access to
> xprtsec=mtls exports so they can discover that for themselves. The
> client needs to explicitly mount with tls, or possibly the client can
> opportunistically try TLS in every case, and call back.
>
> So the original patch is OK.
>
> NeilBrown
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-06 22:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-12 22:19 Pali Rohár
2024-09-12 22:52 ` NeilBrown
2024-09-12 23:00 ` Pali Rohár
2024-10-06 17:50 ` Chuck Lever
2024-10-06 22:13 ` NeilBrown
2024-10-06 22:29 ` Pali Rohár [this message]
2024-10-06 22:58 ` Chuck Lever III
2024-10-06 23:36 ` NeilBrown
2024-10-07 15:50 ` Chuck Lever III
2024-10-08 1:17 ` Rick Macklem
2024-10-08 18:54 ` Pali Rohár
2024-10-08 18:57 ` Chuck Lever
2024-10-08 21:47 ` NeilBrown
2024-10-09 19:55 ` Chuck Lever
2024-10-09 20:14 ` NeilBrown
2024-10-09 23:30 ` Chuck Lever
2024-10-10 20:49 ` NeilBrown
2024-10-05 16:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Pali Rohár
2024-10-09 18:41 ` cel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241006222918.jnf4odeoyq6u7l5m@pali \
--to=pali@kernel.org \
--cc=Dai.Ngo@oracle.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=okorniev@redhat.com \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®