From: Ross Zwisler <zwisler@google.com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Raul Rangel <rrangel@google.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mattias Nissler <mnissler@chromium.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Benjamin Gordon <bmgordon@google.com>,
Micah Morton <mortonm@google.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Add a "nosymfollow" mount option.
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:21:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200221182119.GA89482@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200221012142.4onrcfjtyghg237d@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:21:42PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2020-02-13, Ross Zwisler <zwisler@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:10:45PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
<>
> > > As far as I can tell, SB_SUBMOUNT doesn't actually have any dependence on
> > > MS_SUBMOUNT. Nothing ever sets or checks MS_SUBMOUNT from within the kernel,
> > > and whether or not it's set from userspace has no bearing on how SB_SUBMOUNT
> > > is used. SB_SUBMOUNT is set independently inside of the kernel in
> > > vfs_submount().
> > >
> > > I agree that their association seems to be historical, introduced in this
> > > commit from David Howells:
> > >
> > > e462ec50cb5fa VFS: Differentiate mount flags (MS_*) from internal superblock flags
> > >
> > > In that commit message David notes:
> > >
> > > (1) Some MS_* flags get translated to MNT_* flags (such as MS_NODEV ->
> > > MNT_NODEV) without passing this on to the filesystem, but some
> > > filesystems set such flags anyway.
> > >
> > > I think this is sort of what we are trying to do with MS_NOSYMFOLLOW: have a
> > > userspace flag that translates to MNT_NOSYMFOLLOW, but which doesn't need an
> > > associated SB_* flag. Is it okay to reclaim the bit currently owned by
> > > MS_SUBMOUNT and use it for MS_NOSYMFOLLOW.
> > >
> > > A second option would be to choose one of the unused MS_* values from the
> > > middle of the range, such as 256 or 512. Looking back as far as git will let
> > > me, I don't think that these flags have been used for MS_* values at least
> > > since v2.6.12:
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/include/linux/fs.h?id=1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
> > >
> > > I think maybe these used to be S_WRITE and S_APPEND, which weren't filesystem
> > > mount flags?
> > >
> > > https://sites.uclouvain.be/SystInfo/usr/include/sys/mount.h.html
> > >
> > > A third option would be to create this flag using the new mount system:
> > >
> > > https://lwn.net/Articles/753473/
> > > https://lwn.net/Articles/759499/
> > >
> > > My main concern with this option is that for Chrome OS we'd like to be able to
> > > backport whatever solution we come up with to a variety of older kernels, and
> > > if we go with the new mount system this would require us to backport the
> > > entire new mount system to those kernels, which I think is infeasible.
> > >
> > > David, what are your thoughts on this? Of these three options for supporting
> > > a new MS_NOSYMFOLLOW flag:
> > >
> > > 1) reclaim the bit currently used by MS_SUBMOUNT
> > > 2) use a smaller unused value for the flag, 256 or 512
> > > 3) implement the new flag only in the new mount system
> > >
> > > do you think either #1 or #2 are workable? If so, which would you prefer?
> >
> > Gentle ping on this - do either of the options using the existing mount API
> > seem possible? Would it be useful for me to send out example patches in one
> > of those directions? Or is it out of the question, and I should spend my time
> > on making patches using the new mount system? Thanks!
>
> I think (1) or (2) sound reasonable, but I'm not really the right person
> to ask.
Cool, I appreciate the feedback. :) I'll go ahead and implement #2 and send
it out, along with example man page updates.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-21 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-04 21:50 [PATCH v5] Add a "nosymfollow" mount option Ross Zwisler
2020-02-04 21:52 ` Raul Rangel
2020-02-04 22:11 ` Ross Zwisler
2020-02-04 23:49 ` Ross Zwisler
2020-02-05 3:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-05 3:45 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-02-06 19:10 ` Ross Zwisler
2020-02-13 15:46 ` Ross Zwisler
2020-02-21 1:21 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-02-21 18:21 ` Ross Zwisler [this message]
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=20200221182119.GA89482@google.com \
--to=zwisler@google.com \
--cc=bmgordon@google.com \
--cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dtor@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mnissler@chromium.org \
--cc=mortonm@google.com \
--cc=rrangel@google.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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).