On 10/20/21 15:04, Chuck Lever III wrote:

quoted

On Oct 20, 2021, at 2:15 PM, Bruce Fields [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 05:45:58PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Oct 20, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Olga Kornievskaia [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:54 AM J. Bruce Fields [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

knfsd has supported server-to-server copy for a couple years (since
5.5).  You have set a module parameter to enable it.  I'm getting asked
when we could turn that parameter on by default.

I've got a couple vague criteria: one just general maturity, the other a
security question:

1. General maturity: the only reports I recall seeing are from testers.
Is anyone using this?  Does it work for them?  Do they find a benefit?
Maybe we could turn it on by default in one distro (Fedora?) and promote
it a little and see what that turns up?

2. Security question: with server-to-server copy enabled, you can send
the server a COPY call with any random address, and the server will
mount that address, open a file, and read from it.  Is that safe?

How about adding a piece then on the server (a policy) that would only
control that? The concept behind the server-to-server was that servers
might have a private/fast network between them that they would want to
utilize. A more restrictive policy could be to only allow predefined
network space to do the COPY? I know that more work. But sound like
perhaps it might be something that provides more control to the
server.

But as Chuck pointed out perhaps the kerberos piece would make this
concern irrelevant.

I like the idea of having a server-side policy setting that
controls whether s2sc is permitted, and maybe establishes a
range of IP addresses allowed to be destination servers.

Maybe, but:

	1) Couldn't you get something awfully close to that with
	firewall configuration?

Not if the s2sc policy setting is on each export.

Is this level complication really necessary... I just
don't see why people would not want to make copies
on all exports faster.

Is not having this option a showstopper to enabling it?

quoted

	2) I'm getting asked why server-side copy isn't on by default.

And your answer to that was "we haven't figured out how to
guarantee security when it's enabled".

I'm thinking the servers will be behind a firewall
which by definition makes them secure.

Now if there is a malicious app throwing COPY calls
with rouge address behind the firewall is that
something we really need to protect from? The
network has already been compromised.

As Olga pointed out... clustered servers will have a
will have a very fast connection between them which
is something we should take advantage of... IMHO

steved.

quoted

	So I guess the requirement to set inter_copy_offload_enable is
	too much.  How does requiring more complicated configuration
	answer that concern?

It answers the concern by letting local administrators choose
to enable or disable s2sc based on their own security needs.

quoted

	3) There's interest in allowing unprivileged NFS mounts.  That's
	more of a security risk than this.  What's the client
	maintainers' judgement about unprivileged NFS mounts?  Do they
	think that would be safe to allow by default in distros?  If so,
	then we're certainly fine here.

Unprivileged mounting seems like a different question to me.
Related, possibly, but not the same. I'd rather leave that
discussion to another thread.


--
Chuck Lever