On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 01:42 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:

quoted

On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:11 PM, Dai Ngo [off-list ref] wrote:



quoted

On 11/29/21 1:10 PM, Chuck Lever III wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Nov 29, 2021, at 2:36 PM, Dai Ngo [off-list ref]
wrote:

On 11/29/21 11:03 AM, Chuck Lever III wrote:

quoted

Hello Dai!

quoted

On Nov 29, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Dai Ngo [off-list ref]
wrote:


On 11/29/21 9:30 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:13:16AM -0800,
dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:

quoted

Hi Bruce,

On 11/21/21 7:04 PM, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:

quoted

On 11/17/21 4:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:46:02PM -0800,
dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:

quoted

On 11/17/21 9:59 AM, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:

quoted

On 11/17/21 6:14 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 03:06:32PM -0800,
dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:

quoted

Just a reminder that this patch is still
waiting for your review.

Yeah, I was procrastinating and hoping yo'ud
figure out the pynfs
failure for me....

Last time I ran 4.0 OPEN18 test by itself and
it passed. I will run
all OPEN tests together with 5.15-rc7 to see if
the problem you've
seen still there.

I ran all tests in nfsv4.1 and nfsv4.0 with
courteous and non-courteous
5.15-rc7 server.

Nfs4.1 results are the same for both courteous
and
non-courteous server:

quoted

Of those: 0 Skipped, 0 Failed, 0 Warned, 169
Passed

Results of nfs4.0 with non-courteous server:

quoted

Of those: 8 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 577
Passed

test failed: LOCK24

Results of nfs4.0 with courteous server:

quoted

Of those: 8 Skipped, 3 Failed, 0 Warned, 575
Passed

tests failed: LOCK24, OPEN18, OPEN30

OPEN18 and OPEN30 test pass if each is run by
itself.

Could well be a bug in the tests, I don't know.

The reason OPEN18 failed was because the test timed
out waiting for
the reply of an OPEN call. The RPC connection used
for the test was
configured with 15 secs timeout. Note that OPEN18
only fails when
the tests were run with 'all' option, this test
passes if it's run
by itself.

With courteous server, by the time OPEN18 runs, there
are about 1026
courtesy 4.0 clients on the server and all of these
clients have opened
the same file X with WRITE access. These clients were
created by the
previous tests. After each test completed, since 4.0
does not have
session, the client states are not cleaned up
immediately on the
server and are allowed to become courtesy clients.

When OPEN18 runs (about 20 minutes after the 1st test
started), it
sends OPEN of file X with OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_WRITE
which causes the
server to check for conflicts with courtesy clients.
The loop that
checks 1026 courtesy clients for share/access
conflict took less
than 1 sec. But it took about 55 secs, on my VM, for
the server
to expire all 1026 courtesy clients.

I modified pynfs to configure the 4.0 RPC connection
with 60 seconds
timeout and OPEN18 now consistently passed. The 4.0
test results are
now the same for courteous and non-courteous server:

8 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 577 Passed

Note that 4.1 tests do not suffer this timeout
problem because the
4.1 clients and sessions are destroyed after each
test completes.

Do you want me to send the patch to increase the
timeout for pynfs?
or is there any other things you think we should do?

I don't know.

55 seconds to clean up 1026 clients is about 50ms per
client, which is
pretty slow.  I wonder why.  I guess it's probably
updating the stable
storage information.  Is /var/lib/nfs/ on your server
backed by a hard
drive or an SSD or something else?

My server is a virtualbox VM that has 1 CPU, 4GB RAM and
64GB of hard
disk. I think a production system that supports this many
clients should
have faster CPUs, faster storage.

quoted

I wonder if that's an argument for limiting the number of
courtesy
clients.

I think we might want to treat 4.0 clients a bit different
from 4.1
clients. With 4.0, every client will become a courtesy
client after
the client is done with the export and unmounts it.

It should be safe for a server to purge a client's lease
immediately
if there is no open or lock state associated with it.

In this case, each client has opened files so there are open
states
associated with them.

quoted

When an NFSv4.0 client unmounts, all files should be closed
at that
point,

I'm not sure pynfs does proper clean up after each subtest, I
will
check. There must be state associated with the client in order
for
it to become courtesy client.

Makes sense. Then a synthetic client like pynfs can DoS a
courteous
server.

quoted

quoted

so the server can wait for the lease to expire and purge it
normally. Or am I missing something?

When 4.0 client lease expires and there are still states
associated
with the client then the server allows this client to become
courtesy
client.

I think the same thing happens if an NFSv4.1 client neglects to
send
DESTROY_SESSION / DESTROY_CLIENTID. Either such a client is
broken
or malicious, but the server faces the same issue of protecting
itself from a DoS attack.

IMO you should consider limiting the number of courteous clients
the server can hold onto. Let's say that number is 1000. When the
server wants to turn a 1001st client into a courteous client, it
can simply expire and purge the oldest courteous client on its
list. Otherwise, over time, the 24-hour expiry will reduce the
set of courteous clients back to zero.

What do you think?

Limiting the number of courteous clients to handle the cases of
broken/malicious 4.1 clients seems reasonable as the last resort.

I think if a malicious 4.1 clients could mount the server's export,
opens a file (to create state) and repeats the same with a
different
client id then it seems like some basic security was already
broken;
allowing unauthorized clients to mount server's exports.

You can do this today with AUTH_SYS. I consider it a genuine attack
surface.

quoted

I think if we have to enforce a limit, then it's only for handling
of seriously buggy 4.1 clients which should not be the norm. The
issue with this is how to pick an optimal number that is suitable
for the running server which can be a very slow or a very fast
server.

Note that even if we impose an limit, that does not completely
solve
the problem with pynfs 4.0 test since its RPC timeout is configured
with 15 secs which just enough to expire 277 clients based on 53ms
for each client, unless we limit it ~270 clients which I think it's
too low.

This is what I plan to do:

1. do not support 4.0 courteous clients, for sure.

Not supporting 4.0 isn’t an option, IMHO. It is a fully supported
protocol at this time, and the same exposure exists for 4.1, it’s
just a little harder to exploit.

If you submit the courteous server patch without support for 4.0, I
think it needs to include a plan for how 4.0 will be added later.

quoted

Why is there a problem here? The requirements are the same for 4.0 and
4.1 (or 4.2). If the lease under which the courtesy lock was
established has expired, then that courtesy lock must be released if
some other client requests a lock that conflicts with the cached lock
(unless the client breaks the courtesy framework by renewing that
original lease before the conflict occurs). Otherwise, it is completely
up to the server when it decides to actually release the lock.

For NFSv4.1 and NFSv4.2, we have DESTROY_CLIENTID, which tells the
server when the client is actually done with the lease, making it easy
to determine when it is safe to release all the courtesy locks. However
if the client does not send DESTROY_CLIENTID, then we're in the same
situation with 4.x (x>0) as we would be with bog standard NFSv4.0. The
lease has expired, and so the courtesy locks are liable to being
dropped.

At Hammerspace we have implemented courtesy locks, and our strategy is
that when a conflict occurs, we drop the entire set of courtesy locks
so that we don't have to deal with the "some locks were revoked"
scenario. The reason is that when we originally implemented courtesy
locks, the Linux NFSv4 client support for lock revocation was a lot
less sophisticated than today. My suggestion is that you might
therefore consider starting along this path, and then refining the
support to make revocation more nuanced once you are confident that the
coarser strategy is working as expected.

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com