NFS: Guard against READDIR loop when entry names exceed MAXNAMELEN
[ Upstream commit f67b55b6588bcf9316a1e6e8d529100a5aa3ebe6 ] Commit 64cfca85bacd asserts the only valid return values for nfs2/3_decode_dirent should not include -ENAMETOOLONG, but for a server that sends a filename3 which exceeds MAXNAMELEN in a READDIR response the client's behavior will be to endlessly retry the operation. We could map -ENAMETOOLONG into -EBADCOOKIE, but that would produce truncated listings without any error. The client should return an error for this case to clearly assert that the server implementation must be corrected. Fixes: 64cfca85bacd ("NFS: Return valid errors from nfs2/3_decode_dirent()") Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
16282aeca4
commit
7a9619e38c
@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ int nfs2_decode_dirent(struct xdr_stream *xdr, struct nfs_entry *entry,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
error = decode_filename_inline(xdr, &entry->name, &entry->len);
|
error = decode_filename_inline(xdr, &entry->name, &entry->len);
|
||||||
if (unlikely(error))
|
if (unlikely(error))
|
||||||
return -EAGAIN;
|
return error == -ENAMETOOLONG ? -ENAMETOOLONG : -EAGAIN;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* The type (size and byte order) of nfscookie isn't defined in
|
* The type (size and byte order) of nfscookie isn't defined in
|
||||||
|
@ -1991,7 +1991,7 @@ int nfs3_decode_dirent(struct xdr_stream *xdr, struct nfs_entry *entry,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
error = decode_inline_filename3(xdr, &entry->name, &entry->len);
|
error = decode_inline_filename3(xdr, &entry->name, &entry->len);
|
||||||
if (unlikely(error))
|
if (unlikely(error))
|
||||||
return -EAGAIN;
|
return error == -ENAMETOOLONG ? -ENAMETOOLONG : -EAGAIN;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
error = decode_cookie3(xdr, &new_cookie);
|
error = decode_cookie3(xdr, &new_cookie);
|
||||||
if (unlikely(error))
|
if (unlikely(error))
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user