wdiff rfc8275.original rfc8275.txt

NFSv4
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Fields
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8275 A. Gruenbacher
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Red Hat
Expires: March 3, 2018 August 30,
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2017

Allowing Inheritable NFSv4 Access Control Entries to Override the Umask
draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-05

Abstract

In many environments, inheritable NFSv4 Access Control Entries (ACEs)
can be rendered ineffective by the application of the per-process
umask.
file mode creation mask (umask). This can be addressed by
transmitting the umask and create mode as separate pieces of data,
allowing the server to make more intelligent decisions about the
permissions to set on new files. This document proposes a protocol
extension which accomplishes to accomplish that.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2018.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8275.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Conventions Used in This Document Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
3. Protocol Extension Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. XDR Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. The mode_umask Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A.
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Problem Statement

On Unix-like systems, each process is associated with a file mode
creation mask (umask), which (umask). The umask specifies which permissions must be
turned off when creating new file system objects.

When applying the mode, section Section 6.4.1.1 of [RFC7530] recommends that
servers SHOULD restrict permissions granted to any user or group
named in the Access Control List (ACL) to be no more than the
permissions granted by the MODE4_RGRP, MODE4_WGRP, and MODE4_XGRP
bits. Servers aiming to provide clients with Unix-like chmod
behavior may also be motivated by the same requirements in [SUSv4].
(See the discussion of additional and alternate access control
mechanisms in section "4.4 File Permissions" "File Permissions", Section 4.4 of that document.) [SUSv4].)

On many existing installations, all ordinary users by default use the same
effective group ID. ID by default. To prevent granting all users full
access to each other's files, such installations usually default to a
umask with very restrictive permissions. As a result, inherited ACL
entries (inheritable ACEs) describing the permissions to be granted
to named users and groups are often ignored. This makes inheritable
ACEs useless in some common cases.

Linux solves this problem on local filesystems file systems by ignoring the umask
in the case the parent of the newly-created
whenever a newly created file has inheritable
ACEs; inherits ACEs from its parent; see
[LinuxACL].

The same solution should work for NFS. However, the NFSv4 protocol
does not currently give the client a way to transmit the umask of the
process opening a file. And clients have no way of atomically
checking for inheritable permissions and applying the umask only when
necessary. As a result, the server receives an OPEN with a mode
attribute that already has the umask applied.

This document solves the problem by defining a new attribute which that
allows the client to transmit umask and the mode specified at file
creation separately, allowing the client to ignore the umask in the
presence of inheritable ACEs. At least in the Linux case, this
allows NFSv4 to provide the same semantics available using local
access.

2. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

3. Protocol Extension Considerations

This document presents an extension to minor version 2 of the NFSv4
protocol as described in [nfsv4-versioning]. [RFC8178]. It describes a new OPTIONAL
feature. NFSv4.2 servers and clients implemented without knowledge
of this extension will continue to interoperate with clients and
servers that are aware of the extension (whether or not they support it or not).
it).

Note that [RFC7862] does not define NFSv4.2 as non-extensible, so
that
[RFC8178] treats it is considered by [nfsv4-versioning] to be as an extensible minor version. As a result, upon publication of this document as a
Proposed Standard, the extension described herein will effectively be
part of NFSv4.2, even though this document This Standards
Track RFC extends NFSv4.2 but does not update [RFC7862] or [RFC7863].

4. XDR Extraction

The additional lines of external data representation External Data Representation (XDR) [RFC4506]
description embedded in this document can be extracted by feeding
this document into the following shell script:

#!/bin/sh
grep '^ *///' $* | sed 's?^ */// ??' | sed 's?^ *///$??'

That is, if the above script is stored in a file called "extract.sh",
and this document is in a file called "umask.txt", then the reader
can do:

sh extract.sh < umask.txt > umask.x
The effect of the script is to remove leading white space from each
line, plus a sentinel sequence of "///".

Once that extraction is done, these added lines need to be inserted
into an appropiate appropriate base XDR of the generated XDR from [RFC7863], [RFC7863]
together with XDR from any additional extensions to be recognized by
the implementation. This will result in a ready-to-compile XDR file.

5. The mode_umask Attribute

/// struct mode_umask4 {
/// mode4 mu_mode;
/// mode4 mu_umask;
/// };
///
/// %/*
/// % * New For UMASK
/// % */
/// const FATTR4_MODE_UMASK = 81;

+------------+----+-------------+-----+------------+
| Name | Id | Data Type | Acc | Defined in |
+------------+----+-------------+-----+------------+
| mode_umask | 81 | mode_umask4 | W | Section 5 |
+------------+----+-------------+-----+------------+

Table 1

The NFSv4.2 mode_umask attribute is based on the umask and on the
mode bits specified at open time, which together determine the mode
of a newly created UNIX file. Only the nine low-order mode4 bits of
mu_umask are defined. A server MUST return NFS4ERR_INVAL if bits
other than those nine are set.

The mode_umask attribute is only meaningful for operations that
create objects (CREATE and OPEN); in other operations that take
fattr4 arguments, the server MUST reject it with NFS4ERR_INVAL.

The server MUST return NFS4ERR_INVAL if the client attempts to set
both mode and mode_umask in the same operation.

When the server supports the mode_umask attribute, a client creating
a file should use mode_umask in place of mode, with mu_mode set to
the unmodified mode provided by the user, user and mu_umask set to the
umask of the requesting process.

The server then uses mode_umask as follows:

o On a server that supports ACL attributes, if an object inherits
any ACEs from its parent directory, mu_mode SHOULD be used, used and
mu_umask ignored.

o Otherwise, mu_umask MUST be used to limit the mode: all bits in
the mode MUST be turned off which that are set in the umask; unmask MUST be turned off; the mode
assigned to the new object becomes (mu_mode & ~mu_umask) instead.

6. Security Considerations

The mode_umask attribute shifts to the server the decision about when
to apply the umask. Because the server MUST apply the umask if there
are no inheritable permissions, the traditional semantics are
preserved in the absence of a permission inheritance mechanism. The
only relaxation of permissions comes in the case in which servers
follow the recommendation that they ignore the umask in the presence
of inheritable permissions.

The practice of ignoring the umask when there are inheritable
permissions in the form of a "POSIX" default ACL is of long standing
and has not given rise to security issues. The "POSIX" default ACL
mechanism and the mechanism for permission inheritance in NFSv4 are
equivalent from a security perspective.

7. IANA Considerations

This document does not require any actions by IANA. IANA actions.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[nfsv4-versioning]
Noveck, D., "Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor
Versions", draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-08 (work in
progress), December 2016.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May 2006.
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4506>.

[RFC7530] Haynes, T. T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System
(NFS)
version Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530,
March 2015. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>.

[RFC7862] Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
Version 2 Protocol", RFC 7862, DOI 10.17487/RFC7862,
November 2016. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7862>.

[RFC7863] Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
Version 2 External Data Representation Standard (XDR)
Description", RFC 7863, DOI 10.17487/RFC7863, November 2016.
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7863>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8178] Noveck, D., "Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor
Versions", RFC 8178, DOI 10.17487/RFC8178, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8178>.

8.2. Informative References

[LinuxACL]
Gruenbacher, A., "ACL(5) - Access Control Lists", Linux
man pages online, ACL(5), March 2002, <http://kernel.org/doc/man-
pages/online/pages/man5/acl.5.html>.
<http://kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man5/
acl.5.html>.

[SUSv4] The Open Group, "Single UNIX Specification Specification, Version 4",
2013.

Appendix A.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Trond Myklebust and Dave Noveck for their review and the
suggestion to define this as a (mode, umask) pair rather than just
umask. Thanks
for review to them and to Warren Kumari, Adam Roach, Spencer Dawkins, Mike
Kupfer, and Thomas Haynes for review, their review and to Thomas Haynes for
XDR help.
help with XDR.

Authors' Addresses

J. Bruce Fields
Red Hat, Inc.

Email: bfields@redhat.com
Andreas Gruenbacher
Red Hat, Inc.

Email: agruenba@redhat.com