Oh, and thanks to everyone who put up with my lame
ZFS snapshot questions.
rick
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 8:13 AM Rick Macklem <rick.mack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:10 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 18 Nov 2023, at 21:19, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:43 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 18 Nov 2023, at 17:23, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 2:27 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 18 Nov 2023, at 15:58, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:09 AM Rick Macklem <rick.mack...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:19 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 22:14, Mike Karels wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 21:24, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Most of the changes in stable/13 that are not in releng/13.2
> > >>>>>>>>> are the "make it work in a jail" stuff. Unfortunately, they are
> > >>>>>>>>> a large # of changes (mostly trivial edits adding vnet macros),
> > >>>>>>>>> but it also includes export check changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I have attached a trivial patch that I think disables the export
> > >>>>>>>>> checks for jails. If either of you can try it and see if it fixes
> > >>>>>>>>> the problem, that would be great.
> > >>>>>>>>> (Note that this is only for testing, although it probably does not
> > >>>>>>>>> matter unless you are running nfsd(8) in vnet jails.)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Yes, I can see snapshots with the patch. This system is just a
> > >>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>> system that doesn't normally run ZFS or NFS, so no problem messing
> > >>>>>>>> with permissions. It's a bhyve VM, so I just added a small disk
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> enabled ZFS for testing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> btw, you might try to get mm@ or maybe mav@ to help out from the ZFS
> > >>>>>>> side. It must be doing something differently inside a snapshot than
> > >>>>>>> outside, maybe with file handles or something like that.
> > >>>>>> Yes. I've added freebsd-current@ (although Garrett is not on it, he
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>> cc'd) and these guys specifically...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So, here's what appears to be the problem...
> > >>>>>> Commit 88175af (in main and stable/13, but not 13.2) added checks for
> > >>>>>> nfsd(8) running in jails by filling in mnt_exjail with a reference
> > >>>>>> to the cred
> > >>>>>> used when the file system is exported.
> > >>>>>> When mnt_exjail is found NULL, the current nfsd code assumes that
> > >>>>>> there
> > >>>>>> is no access allowed for the mount.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My vague understanding is that when a ZFS snapshot is accessed, it is
> > >>>>>> "pseudo-mounted" by zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() and I am guessing that
> > >>>>>> mnt_exjail is NULL as a result.
> > >>>>>> Since I do not know the ZFS code and don't even have an easy way to
> > >>>>>> test this (thankfully Mike can test easily), I do not know what to
> > >>>>>> do from
> > >>>>>> here?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is there a "struct mount" constructed for this pseudo mount
> > >>>>>> (or it actually appears to be the lookup of ".." that fails, so it
> > >>>>>> might be the parent of the snapshot subdir?)?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> One thought is that I can check to see if the mount pointer is in the
> > >>>>>> mountlist (I don't think the snapshot's mount is in the mountlist)
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>> avoid the jail test for this case. This would assume that snapshots
> > >>>>>> are
> > >>>>>> always within the file system(s) exported via that jail (which
> > >>>>>> includes
> > >>>>>> the case of prison0, of course), so that they do not need a separate
> > >>>>>> jail check.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If this doesn't work, there will need to be some sort of messing
> > >>>>>> about
> > >>>>>> in ZFS to set mnt_exjail for these.
> > >>>>> Ok, so now onto the hard part...
> > >>>>> Thanks to Mike and others, I did create a snapshot under .zfs and I
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>> see the problem. It is that mnt_exjail == NULL.
> > >>>>> Now, is there a way that this "struct mount" can be recognized as
> > >>>>> "special"
> > >>>>> for snapshots, so I can avoid the mnt_exjail == NULL test?
> > >>>>> (I had hoped that "mp->mnt_list.tqe_prev" would be NULL, but that is
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>> the case.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dumb question, is the mount point (mp presumably) different between the
> > >>>> snapshot and the main file system?
> > >>> Not a dump question and the answer is rather interesting...
> > >>> It is "sometimes" or "usually" according to my printf().
> > >>> It seems that when you first "cd <snapshot-name"" you get a different mp
> > >>> where mnt_exjail == NULL.. Then when you look at directories within the
> > >>> snapshot, you get the mp of the file system that .zfs exists in, which
> > >>> does
> > >>> have mnt_exjail set non-NULL.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is this snippet of code in zfsctl_snapdir_lookup():
> > >>> /*
> > >>> * Fix up the root vnode mounted on .zfs/snapshot/<snapname>.
> > >>> *
> > >>> * This is where we lie about our v_vfsp in order to
> > >>> * make .zfs/snapshot/<snapname> accessible over NFS
> > >>> * without requiring manual mounts of <snapname>.
> > >>> */
> > >>> ASSERT3P(VTOZ(*vpp)->z_zfsvfs, !=, zfsvfs);
> > >>> VTOZ(*vpp)->z_zfsvfs->z_parent = zfsvfs;
> > >>>
> > >>> /* Clear the root flag (set via VFS_ROOT) as well. */
> > >>> (*vpp)->v_vflag &= ~VV_ROOT;
> > >>> which seems to set the mp to that of the parent, but it
> > >>> seems this does not happen for the initial lookup of
> > >>> the <snapname>?
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll note that there is code before this in
> > >>> zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() for handling cases
> > >>> like "." and ".." that return without doing this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now, why does this work without the mnt_exjail
> > >>> check (as in 13.2)?
> > >>> I am not quite sure, but there is this "cheat" in the
> > >>> NFS server (it has been there for years, maybe decades):
> > >>> /*
> > >>> * Allow a Lookup, Getattr, GetFH, Secinfo on an
> > >>> * non-exported directory if
> > >>> * nfs_rootfhset. Do I need to allow any other Ops?
> > >>> * (You can only have a non-exported vpnes if
> > >>> * nfs_rootfhset is true. See nfsd_fhtovp())
> > >>> * Allow AUTH_SYS to be used for file systems
> > >>> * exported GSS only for certain Ops, to allow
> > >>> * clients to do mounts more easily.
> > >>> */
> > >>> if (nfsv4_opflag[op].needscfh && vp) {
> > >>> if (!NFSVNO_EXPORTED(&vpnes) &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_LOOKUP &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_GETATTR &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_GETFH &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_ACCESS &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_READLINK &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_SECINFO &&
> > >>> op != NFSV4OP_SECINFONONAME)
> > >>> nd->nd_repstat = NFSERR_NOFILEHANDLE;
> > >>> This allows certain operations to be done on
> > >>> non-exported file systems and I think that is enough
> > >>> to allow this to work when mnt_exjail is not checked.
> > >>> (Note that NFSV4OP_LOOKUPP is not in the list,
> > >>> which might explain why it is the one that fails for
> > >>> Garrett. I don't think it can be added to this list
> > >>> safely, since that would allow a client to move above
> > >>> the exported file system into "uncharted territory".)
> > >>>
> > >>>> Just curious. Also, what is mnt_exjail
> > >>>> normally set to for file systems not in a jail?
> > >>> mnt_exjail is set to the credentials of the thread/process
> > >>> that exported the file system (usually mountd(8)).
> > >>> When not in a jail, cr_prison for these credentials
> > >>> points to prison0.
> > >>>
> > >>> Btw, I checked and the "other mp that has mnt_exjail == NULL
> > >>> is in the mountlist, so the idea of checking "not in mountlist"
> > >>> is a dead end.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am looking for something "unique" about this other mp,
> > >>> but haven't found anything yet.
> > >>> Alternately, it might be necessary to add code to
> > >>> zfsctl_snapdir_lookup() to "cheat and change the mp"
> > >>> in more cases, such as "." and ".." lookups?
> > >>
> > >> It seems to me that if ZFS is creating an additional mount structure,
> > >> it should be responsible for setting it up correctly. That could
> > >> involve a vfs-level routine to do some of the cloning. In any case,
> > >> it seems to me that mnt_exjail should be set properly, e.g. by duping
> > >> the one in the original mount structure. Probably ZFS is the only
> > >> file system type that would need this added.
> > > I've created a patch that I think does this. It seemed to test ok for my
> > > case.
> > > It's in D42672 on reviews.freebsd.org.
> > > I have also attached it here (this diff doesn't use -U999999, so it might
> > > be
> > > easier to apply).
> >
> > It works for me in 13-stable, and looks plausible.
>
> The patch has now been fixed so that there is no race between
> vfs_exjail_clone()
> and a jail dying. I believe the current patch fixes the problem.
> The patch can be found as an attachment to PR#275200 (that is a FreeBSD
> bugzilla
> problem report, not an OpenZFS pull request). I will not close the PR until
> the above has all happened.
>
> This patch will be needed for systems running stable/13, stable/14 and 14.0.
>
> The vfs_exjail_clone() part of the patch is now committed to main and will be
> MFC'd in 3 days. The ZFS part of the patch is a pull request on OpenZFS.
> I cannot say how long the ZFS part takes or if/when an errata to 14.0 will
> happen.
>
> Sorry about the breakage and thanks for reporting it (and persevering when
> I said I knew nothing about ZFS, which is true). Thanks goes to Mike Karels,
> who was able to determine that the problem was not in 13.2, but was in
> stable/13,
> which allowed me to conclude it was a "nfsd in jail" related breakage.
>
> rick
>
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > Hopefully this fixes the problem. Sorry for the breakage.
> > >
> > > rick
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >>> rick
> > >>> ps: I added all the cc's back in because I want the
> > >>> ZFS folk to hopefully chime in.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Mike
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Do I need to search mountlist for it?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> rick
> > >>>>> ps: The hack patch attached should fix the problem, but can only be
> > >>>>> safely used if mountd/nfsd are not run in any jails.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I will try and get a test setup going here, which leads me to..
> > >>>>>> how do I create a ZFS snapshot? (I do have a simple ZFS pool running
> > >>>>>> on a test machine, but I've never done a snapshot.)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Although this problem is not in 13.2, it will have shipped in 14.0.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Any help with be appreciated, rick
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Mike
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> rick
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:14 PM Mike Karels <m...@karels.net>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of
> > >>>>>>>>>> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > >>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt,
> > >>>>>>>>>> forward suspicious emails to ith...@uoguelph.ca.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Rick, have you been following this thread on freebsd-stable? I
> > >>>>>>>>>> have been able
> > >>>>>>>>>> to reproduce this using a 13-stable server from Oct 7 and a
> > >>>>>>>>>> 15-current system
> > >>>>>>>>>> that is up to date using NFSv3. I did not reproduce with a 13.2
> > >>>>>>>>>> server. The
> > >>>>>>>>>> client was running 13.2. Any ideas? A full bisect seems fairly
> > >>>>>>>>>> painful, but
> > >>>>>>>>>> maybe you have an idea of points to try. Fortunately, these are
> > >>>>>>>>>> all test
> > >>>>>>>>>> systems that I can reboot at will.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Mike
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Forwarded message:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Garrett Wollman <woll...@bimajority.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> To: Mike Karels <m...@karels.net>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: NFS exports of ZFS snapshots broken
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 17:35:04 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <<On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:57:42 -0600, Mike Karels
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <m...@karels.net> said:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have not run into this, so I tried it just now. I had no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The server is 13.2, fully patched, the client is up-to-date
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -current,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and the mount is v4.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On my 13.2 client and 13-stable server, I see:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL
> > >>>>>>>>>>> open(0x237d32f9a000,0x120004<O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_DIRECTORY|O_CLOEXEC>)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls NAMI "/mnt/tools/.zfs/snapshot/weekly-2023-45"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET open 4
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL fcntl(0x4,F_ISUNIONSTACK,0x0)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET fcntl 0
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL
> > >>>>>>>>>>> getdirentries(0x4,0x237d32faa000,0x1000,0x237d32fa7028)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET getdirentries -1 errno 5 Input/output
> > >>>>>>>>>>> error
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL close(0x4)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls RET close 0
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 25034 ls CALL exit(0)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Certainly a libc bug here that getdirentries(2) returning [EIO]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> results in ls(1) returning EXIT_SUCCESS, but the [EIO] error is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> consistent across both FreeBSD and Linux clients.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Looking at this from the RPC side:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR, LOOKUP(snapshotname), GETFH, GETATTR)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK for all ops]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, ACCESS(0x3f), GETATTR)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK, rights = 0x03, NFS4_OK]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (PUTFH, GETATTR, LOOKUPP, GETFH, GETATTR)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [NFS4_OK, NFS4_OK, NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and at this point the [EIO] is returned.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems that clients always do a LOOKUPP before calling
> > >>>>>>>>>>> READDIR, and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> this is failing when the subject file handle is the snapshot.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>> client is perfectly able to *traverse into* the snapshot: if I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> try to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> list a subdirectory I know exists in the snapshot, the client
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is able to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> LOOKUP(dirname) just fine, but LOOKUPP still fails with
> > >>>>>>>>>>> NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE *on the subndirectory*.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -GAWollman
> > >>>>>>>>>>
