Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Description of problem:
nfs4_setfacl fails on numeric name file with error: "No path(s) specified."
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.8 (Maipo)
nfs4-acl-tools-0.3.3-20.el7.x86_64
How reproducible:
# nfs4_setfacl -a A::gg@domain:RWX 456 => failed: No path(s) specified.
# nfs4_setfacl -a A::gg@domain:RWX 123 => failed: No path(s) specified.
# nfs4_setfacl -a A::gg@domain:RWX ./456 => It worked.
# nfs4_setfacl -a A::gg@domain:RWX 456a => It worked.
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
nfs4_setfacl fails on numeric name file with error: "No path(s) specified."
Expected results:
nfs4_setfacl should work normally with file which only has numeric filename.
Additional info:
Can you share if this can be reproduced on RHEL8?
Given there is a workaround, and state of RHEL7, this does not seem appropriate for RHEL7 at this point. SteveD, any thoughts on this one?
RHEL8 also has this problem:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[root@hp-dl388g8-20 mnt_test]# ls
123 testfile
[root@hp-dl388g8-20 mnt_test]# nfs4_setfacl -a A::OWNER@:rwatTcCy testfile
[root@hp-dl388g8-20 mnt_test]# nfs4_setfacl -a A::OWNER@:rwatTcCy 123
No path(s) specified.
[root@hp-dl388g8-20 mnt_test]# rpm -qf `which nfs4_setfacl`
nfs4-acl-tools-0.3.5-3.el8.x86_64
[root@hp-dl388g8-20 mnt_test]#
Looks like we don't check a numeric name file before.
Hi Bruce, do you think this is a fixable issue?
The problem is that a number there has a special meaning; from the nfs4_setfacl man page:
-a acl_spec [index]
add the ACEs from acl_spec to file's ACL. ACEs are inserted
starting at the indexth position (DEFAULT: 1) of file's ACL.
So in the case the next word after acl_spec is a number, it's ambiguous whether it was meant to be an index or a file name.
Well, actually, I think a file is mandatory, so in the case of "nfs4_setfacl -a A::OWNER@:rwatTcCy 123", "123" has to be a file name. But it's also legal to specify multiple filenames, so e.g. "nfs4_setfacl -a A::OWNER@:rwatTcCy 123 file.txt" will always be ambiguous.
For now, either "nfs4_setfacl -a A::OWNER@:rwatTcCy ./123" or "nfs4_setfacl -a A::OWNER@:rwatTcCy 1 123" is a workaround.
Longer term, this syntax is inherently ambiguous, so we should replace it by something else and phase it out.
(In reply to Dave Wysochanski from comment #6)
> Can you share if this can be reproduced on RHEL8?
>
> Given there is a workaround, and state of RHEL7, this does not seem
> appropriate for RHEL7 at this point. SteveD, any thoughts on this one?
I agree with you... This is not something for RHEL7
Comment 11Dave Wysochanski
2021-11-22 11:05:58 UTC