From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:59321 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728168AbeHJUbf (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:31:35 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" 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, Miklos Szeredi References: <87d0uqpba5.fsf@xmission.com> <153313703562.13253.5766498657900728120.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <22361.1533913891@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20180810153902.GH21087@thunk.org> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:00:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180810153902.GH21087@thunk.org> (Theodore Y. Ts'o's message of "Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:39:02 -0400") Message-ID: <87mutunlu1.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: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" writes: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 04:11:31PM +0100, David Howells wrote: >> >> Yes. Since you *absolutely* *insist* on this being fixed *right* *now* *or* >> *else*, I'm working up a set of additional patches to give userspace the >> option of whether they want no sharing; sharing, but only with exactly the >> same parameters; or to ignore the parameter differences and just accept >> sharing of what's already already mounted (ie. the current behaviour). > > But there's no way to support "no sharing", at least not in the > general case. A file system can only be mounted once, and without > file system support, there's no way for a file system to be mounted > with the bsddf or minixdf mount simultaneously. > > Even *with* file system support, there's no way today for the VFS to > keep track of whether a pathname resolution came through one > mountpoint or another, so I can't do something like this: > > mount /dev/sdXX -o casefold /android-data > mount /dev/sdXX -o nocasefold /android-data-2 > > Which is a pity, since if we could we could much more easily get rid > of the horror which is Android's wrapfs... > > So if the file system has been mounted with one set of mount options, > and you want to try to mount it with a conflicting set of mount > options and you don't want it to silently ignore the mount options, > the *only* thing we can today is to refuse the mount and return an > error. > > I'm not sure Eric would really consider that an improvement for the > container use case.... I think I would consider it an improvement. I keep running into cases where the mount options differed and something was done silently and that causes problems. Eric