From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
aviro@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] fsmount: do not use legacy MS_ flags
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:18:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180924131815.76topcqqh3spyvvp@brauner.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29956.1537792665@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3128 bytes --]
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 01:37:45PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> > I have thought a little more about splitting up the mount flags into
> > sensible sets. I think the following four sets make sense:
> >
> > enum {
> > MOUNT_ATTR_PROPAGATION = 1,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_SECURITY,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_SYNC,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_TIME,
> > };
>
> Al (I think it was) has been against splitting them up before (I've previously
> proposed splitting the topology propagation flags from the mount attributes).
Right, that request could probably be fulfilled by the first draft for
this idea that I had but didn't send out.
Basically, having a sequential enum that only ever gets bumped when we
run out of flags in a set, i.e.
enum {
MOUNT_ATTR_SET_1 = 1,
MOUNT_ATTR_SET_2 = 2,
MOUNT_ATTR_SET_3 = 3,
.
.
.
};
Then we would currently only define a single set
enum {
MOUNT_ATTR_SET_1 = 1,
};
dump all the current mount flags we would like to support in there and
call it a day until we run out of flags at which point we introduce
MOUNT_ATTR_SET_2.
But honestly, I find defining cuts by forming sets of logically related
flags to be more intuitive and transparent for kernel- and userspace.
But I'm just another muppet with an opinion. :)
>
> > #define MOUNT_ATTR_NOATIME (1<<1)
> > #define MOUNT_ATTR_RELATIME (1<<3)
> > #define MOUNT_ATTR_STRICTATIME (1<<4)
>
> These aren't independent, but are actually settings on the same dial, so I
> would suggest that they shouldn't be separate flags. I'm not sure about
> LAZYTIME though.
So what you or Miklos suggested before, namely making them an enum too?
>
> > enum {
> > MOUNT_ATTR_PROPAGATION = 1,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_SECURITY,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_SECURITY_1 = MOUNT_ATTR_SECURITY,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_SYNC,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_TIME,
> > MOUNT_ATTR_SECURITY_2,
> > };
>
> In UAPI headers, always explicitly number your symbols, even in an enum, just
> to make sure that the numbers don't get transparently changed by accident.
+1 and thanks for the tip!
>
> > These flags will likely become AT_* flags or be tied to a syscall
> > afaict.
> >
> > #define MS_REMOUNT 32
> > #define MS_BIND 4096
> > #define MS_MOVE 8192
> > #define MS_REC 16384
>
> MS_REMOUNT: fd = fspick(); fscommand(fd, FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE);
>
> MS_REMOUNT|MS_BIND: mount_setattr().
>
> MS_BIND: fd = open_tree(..., OPEN_TREE_CLONE); move_mount(fd, "", ...);
>
> MS_MOVE: fd = open_tree(..., 0); move_mount(fd, "", ...);
>
> MS_REC: AT_RECURSIVE
>
> > Internal sb flags will not be part of the new mount attr sets. (They
> > should - imho - not be exposed to userspace at all.):
>
> Agreed.
>
> > What remains is an odd duck that probably could be thrown into security
> > but also *shrug*
> >
> > #define MS_I_VERSION (1<<23)
>
> Um. I think it would probably belong with atime settings.
>
> David
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-24 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-20 15:12 [PATCH 0/6] mount-api: fixes and cleanups Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-20 15:12 ` [PATCH 1/6] selinux: fold superblock_doinit() into only caller Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-20 15:12 ` [PATCH 2/6] vfs_submount: use SB_SUBMOUNT instead of MS_SUBMOUNT Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-20 15:12 ` [PATCH 3/6] mount: fix regression in setting "subtype" from legacy API Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-20 15:12 ` [PATCH 4/6] fsconfig: parse "subtype" param for old internal API Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-20 15:12 ` [PATCH 5/6] fsmount: do not use legacy MS_ flags Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-20 15:12 ` [PATCH 6/6] fsconfig: rename FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE to FSCONFIG_CMD_OBTAIN Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-21 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/6] selinux: fold superblock_doinit() into only caller David Howells
2018-09-21 14:45 ` [PATCH 2/6] vfs_submount: use SB_SUBMOUNT instead of MS_SUBMOUNT David Howells
2018-09-21 14:52 ` [PATCH 3/6] mount: fix regression in setting "subtype" from legacy API David Howells
2018-09-21 14:56 ` [PATCH 4/6] fsconfig: parse "subtype" param for old internal API David Howells
2018-09-21 15:07 ` [PATCH 5/6] fsmount: do not use legacy MS_ flags David Howells
2018-09-21 15:28 ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-21 15:37 ` David Howells
2018-09-21 15:54 ` Christian Brauner
2018-09-21 16:52 ` David Howells
2018-09-22 13:21 ` Christian Brauner
2018-09-22 15:48 ` David Howells
2018-09-22 16:14 ` Christian Brauner
2018-09-23 22:45 ` David Howells
2018-09-23 23:01 ` Christian Brauner
2018-09-24 6:50 ` David Howells
2018-09-24 9:47 ` Christian Brauner
2018-09-24 12:37 ` David Howells
2018-09-24 13:18 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2018-09-21 15:11 ` [PATCH 6/6] fsconfig: rename FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE to FSCONFIG_CMD_OBTAIN David Howells
2018-09-21 15:23 ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-21 16:44 ` [PATCH 0/6] mount-api: fixes and cleanups David Howells
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=20180924131815.76topcqqh3spyvvp@brauner.io \
--to=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=aviro@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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).