[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.17-rc3 - fs/namespace.c issue
has other stuff Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:33:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> There seems to have been a bug introduced in this changeset:
>>> Am running 2.6.17-rc3-mm1. When this changeset is applied, 'mount --bind'
>>> misbehaves:
>>>> # mkdir /foo
>>>> # mount -t tmpfs -o rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,noatime,nodiratime none /foo
>>>> # mkdir /foo/bar
>>>> # mount --bind /foo/bar /foo
>>>> # tail -2 /proc/mounts
>>>> none /foo tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,noatime,nodiratime 0 0
>>>> none /foo tmpfs rw 0 0
>>> Reverting this changeset causes both mounts to have the same options.
>>> (Thanks to Stephen Smalley for tracking down the changeset...)
> well, IMHO there are several open questions regarding semantics
> first, what do we expect from --bind mounts regarding
> vfs (mount) level flags like noatime, noexec, nodev?
> - should they be propagated from the original mfs/mount?
> - should they only restrict the original set?
> - should they allow to modify the existing flags?

What does it mean if the flags can be modified? If I mount a tree ro, do
I want to open the can of worms from allowing part of it to be rw
elsewhere? And what checking is done, or should be done? If I do a ro
mount with something like NFS, what should happen if I mount part of it
rw? Substitute any of the other above flags, is there a security issue
here, and can I shoot myself in the foot?

Can I apply the "user" attribute in fstab to a bind mount? If I let a
user bind /foo/bar to /bazfaz/zot, what happens if I have the wrong
thing mounted on /foo? Or if /bazfaz is NFS exported read only?
> IMHO, it makes perfect sense to mount something noatime
> and change that rule later for a subtree like this:
> mkdir /foo
> mount -t tmpfs -o rw,noatime none /foo
> mkdir /foo/bar
> mount --bind -o atime /foo/bar /foo/bar
> second, has the kernel to decide what flags userspace
> can request and/or change, depending on the original?
> and finally, how to handle --rbind mounts at a level
> deeper than the top?
> so I do not consider the example above a misbehaviour.
> what I consider a misbehaviour is that mount (userspace)
> blindly assumes that --bind mounts are independant, so
> it does not check the existing flags, and thus, does not
> preserve them (instead it replaces them with the default)
> removing the mnt->mnt_flags = mnt_flags; assignment
> is sufficient to _only_ allow the identical attributes
> of the original mount, as they are copied in the
> clone_mnt() operation, of course, this also makes it
> impossible to have any flags/changes to the --bind mounts
> over the original

That certainly is a lot less likely to violate Plauger's law of least
> as this patch was torn out of a much larger patch set
> to allow for such attribute changes at --bind mount time
> I'd sugegst the following untested 'fix'
> best,
> Herbert

-bill davidsen (
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-15 23:22    [W:0.123 / U:2.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site