From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:45121 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727381AbeHJRsP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:48:15 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: David Howells , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, John Johansen , Tejun Heo , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, Paul Moore , Li Zefan , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com, Casey Schaufler , fenghua.yu@intel.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Eric Biggers , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Tetsuo Handa , Johannes Weiner , Stephen Smalley , tomoyo-dev-en@lists.sourceforge.jp, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Miklos Szeredi References: <153313703562.13253.5766498657900728120.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <87d0uqpba5.fsf@xmission.com> <0F2FA70F-8C7E-4D7D-B685-244A76BDB459@amacapital.net> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:17:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <0F2FA70F-8C7E-4D7D-B685-244A76BDB459@amacapital.net> (Andy Lutomirski's message of "Fri, 10 Aug 2018 07:36:17 -0700") Message-ID: <8736vmp7xq.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: BUG: Mount ignores mount options Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andy Lutomirski writes: >> On Aug 10, 2018, at 7:05 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> >> There is a serious problem with mount options today that fsopen does not >> address. The problem is that mount options are ignored for block based >> filesystems, and any other type of filesystem that follows the same >> pattern. >> > >> /dev/loop0 /root/loop0-noacl-noquota-nouser_xattr ext4 rw,relatime,nouser_xattr,noacl 0 0 >> /dev/loop0 /root/loop0-acl-quota-user_xattr ext4 rw,relatime,nouser_xattr,noacl 0 0 > > To make sure I understand correctly: the problem is that the second > mount ignored the options because the device was already mounted, > right? Yes. > For the new API, I think the only remotely sane approach is to refuse > to mount or init or whatever you call it an already mounted bdev. If > user code genuinely needs to bind-mount an existing mount that is > known only by its bdev, we can add a specific API just for that. Eric