Re: [PATCH] xfs: use a unique and persistent value for f_fsid

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:43 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:53:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > This also means that userspace can be entirely filesystem agnostic
> > > > and it doesn't need to rely on parsing proc files to translate
> > > > ephemeral mount IDs to paths, statvfs() and hoping that f_fsid is
> > > > stable enough that it doesn't get the destination wrong.  It also
> > > > means that fanotify UAPI probably no longer needs to supply a
> > > > f_fsid with the filehandle because it is built into the
> > > > filehandle....
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is one option. Let's call it the "bullet proof" option.
> > >
> > > Another option, let's call it the "pragmatic" options, is that you accept
> > > that my patch shouldn't break anything and agree to apply it.
> >
> > Your patch may very well break something.  Most Linux file systems do
> > store the dev_t in the fsid and userspace may for whatever silly
> > reasons depend on it.
> >
> 
> I acknowledge that.
> I do not claim that my change carries zero risk of breakage.
> However, if such userspace dependency exists, it would break on ext4,
> btrfs, ocsf2, ceph and many more fs, so it would have to be a
> dependency that is tightly coupled with a specific fs.
> The probability of that is rather low IMO.
> 
> I propose an opt-in mount option "-o fixed_fsid" for this behavior to make
> everyone sleep better.

Layering hacks on top of hacks to avoid fixing the fanotify UAPI
limitations isn't a very palatable option. Especially those that
require adding mount options we'll have to support forever more...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com