linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
	Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
	Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: Make bind mounts work with bdev_allow_write_mounted=n
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:46:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230705-pumpwerk-vielversprechend-a4b1fd947b65@brauner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230705130033.ttv6rdywj5bnxlzx@quack3>

On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 04-07-23 15:59:41, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:56:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > When we don't allow opening of mounted block devices for writing, bind
> > > mounting is broken because the bind mount tries to open the block device
> > 
> > Sorry, I'm going to be annoying now...
> > 
> > Afaict, the analysis is misleading but I'm happy to be corrected ofc.
> 
> I'm not sure what your objection exactly is. Probably I was imprecise in my
> changelog description. What gets broken by not allowing RW open of a
> mounted block device is:
> 
> mount -t ext4 /dev/sda1 /mnt1
> mount -t ext4 /dev/sda1 /mnt2
> 
> The second mount should create another mount of the superblock created by
> the first mount but before that is done, get_tree_bdev() tries to open the
> block device and fails when only patches 1 & 2 are applied. This patch
> fixes that.

My objection is that this has nothing to do with mounts but with
superblocks. :) No mount need exist for this issue to appear. And I would
prefer if we keep superblock and mount separate as this leads to unclear
analysis and changelogs.

> 
> > Finding an existing superblock is independent of mounts. get_tree_bdev()
> > and mount_bdev() are really only interested in finding a matching
> > superblock independent of whether or not a mount for it already exists.
> > IOW, if you had two filesystem contexts for the same block device with
> > different mount options:
> > 
> > T1								T2
> > fd_fs = fsopen("ext4");						fd_fs = fsopen("ext4");
> > fsconfig(fd_fs, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "source", "/dev/sda");	fsconfig(fd_fs, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "source", "/dev/sda");
> > 
> > // create superblock
> > fsconfig(fd_fs, FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE, ...)
> > 								// finds superblock of T1 if opts are compatible
> > 								fsconfig(fd_fs, FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE, ...)
> > 
> > you should have the issue that you're describing.
> 
> Correct, this will get broken when not allowing RW open for mounted block
> devices as well because the second fsconfig(fd_fs, FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE,
> ...) will fail to open the block device in get_tree_bdev(). But again this
> patch should fix that.
> 
> > But for neither of them does a mount already exist as the first mount
> > here would only be created when:
> > 
> > T1								T2
> > fsmount(fd_fs);							fsmount(fd_fs);
> > 
> > is called at which point the whole superblock issue is already settled.
> > Afterwards, both mounts of both T1 and T2 refer to the same superblock -
> > as long as the fs and the mount options support this ofc.
> 
> I guess the confusion comes from me calling "mount" an operation as
> performed by the mount(8) command but which is in fact multiple operations
> with the new mount API. Anyway, is the motivation of this patch clearer
> now?

I'm clear about what you're doing here. I would just like to not have
mounts brought into the changelog. Even before the new mount api what
you were describing was technically a superblock only issue. If someone
reads the changelog I want them to be able to clearly see that this is a
fix for superblocks, not mounts.

Especially, since the code you touch really only has to to with
superblocks.
Let me - non ironically - return the question: Is my own request clearer
now?

  reply	other threads:[~2023-07-05 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-04 12:56 [PATCH RFC 0/6 v2] block: Add config option to not allow writing to mounted devices Jan Kara
2023-07-04 12:56 ` [PATCH 1/6] " Jan Kara
2023-07-04 15:56   ` Colin Walters
2023-07-04 16:52     ` Eric Biggers
2023-08-14 16:41       ` Jan Kara
2023-08-14 16:43     ` Jan Kara
2023-07-04 18:44   ` Eric Biggers
2023-07-04 20:55     ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-07-05 10:30     ` Jan Kara
2023-07-05 15:12   ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-08-22  5:35   ` Eric Biggers
2023-08-22 10:11     ` Jan Kara
2023-10-19  9:16       ` Aleksandr Nogikh
2023-10-24 11:10         ` Jan Kara
2023-10-27 12:06           ` Aleksandr Nogikh
2023-11-08 10:10           ` Jan Kara
2023-11-08 18:24             ` Aleksandr Nogikh
2023-07-04 12:56 ` [PATCH 2/6] fs: Block writes to mounted block devices Jan Kara
2023-07-04 12:56 ` [PATCH 3/6] xfs: Block writes to log device Jan Kara
2023-07-04 15:53   ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-07-05 10:31     ` Jan Kara
2023-07-04 12:56 ` [PATCH 4/6] ext4: Block writes to journal device Jan Kara
2023-07-04 12:56 ` [PATCH 5/6] btrfs: Block writes to seed devices Jan Kara
2023-07-12 14:33   ` David Sterba
2023-07-04 12:56 ` [PATCH 6/6] fs: Make bind mounts work with bdev_allow_write_mounted=n Jan Kara
2023-07-04 13:59   ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-05 13:00     ` Jan Kara
2023-07-05 13:46       ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2023-07-05 16:14         ` Jan Kara
2023-07-06 15:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-06 16:12     ` Jan Kara
2023-07-07  7:39       ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-07 10:48         ` Jan Kara
2023-07-07 11:31         ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-07 12:28           ` Jan Kara
2023-07-07 11:30       ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-04 13:40 ` [PATCH RFC 0/6 v2] block: Add config option to not allow writing to mounted devices Christian Brauner
2023-07-05 12:27 ` Mike Fleetwood
2023-08-14 16:39   ` Jan Kara

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230705-pumpwerk-vielversprechend-a4b1fd947b65@brauner \
    --to=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=alex.popov@linux.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@google.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=keescook@google.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).