All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John S J Anderson <jacobs@genehack.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: bug with multiple mounts of filesystems in 2.6
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:29:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86oem2hgv8.fsf@mendel.genehack.org> (raw)


  Hi --

  We're working on migrating to the 2.6 kernel series, and one big
  problem has popped up: we have a number of NFS mounts that are
  mounted read-only in one location and read-write in a distinct
  location (on the same machine). With 2.4 series kernels, this worked
  without issue, but with 2.6, it doesn't: it's not possible to mount
  the same filesystem twice with different options for each mount; the
  two mount points have to share the same mount options.

  Furthermore, if you do mount one filesystem at two different places,
  changing the mount options on one mount point ('mount -o remount,rw
  $MOUNT1', for example) also results in the mount options on the
  other mount point being changed. Finally, the information returned
  by 'mount' about the mount points is wrong -- 'mount' will show (for
  example) one mount point being 'rw' and the other being 'ro', when
  in fact attempting to use the 'rw' mount point will show it to be
  read-only. /proc/mounts correctly indicates that both mounts are
  read-only. 

  Further experimentation has shown: 

  * the NFS layer is not involved; it is possible to reproduce this
    problem using just locally-attached filesystems.
  * this affects at least 2.6.3, 2.6.5, and 2.6.7.
  * it happens with mount version 2.11r and 2.12.

  Because the options of the first mount point "wins" (i.e., mounting a
  filesystem once read-write, and then a second time as read-only,
  leaves both mounts in a read-write state), it seems like there's
  some sort of caching optimization going on -- but I haven't looked
  into the code to find out if that guess is correct.
  
  Any pointers towards restoring the 2.4 behavior welcomed. 

thanks,
john.
-- 
Perhaps you have forgotten that this is an engineering discipline, not
some sort of black magic.
  Mark Jason Dominus's Good Advice #11946

             reply	other threads:[~2004-07-26 18:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-07-26 16:29 John S J Anderson [this message]
2004-07-26 19:37 ` bug with multiple mounts of filesystems in 2.6 Trond Myklebust
2004-07-26 21:33   ` Mike Waychison
2004-07-26 22:30     ` Herbert Poetzl
2004-07-26 22:35     ` Trond Myklebust
2004-07-27  0:56       ` Mike Waychison
2004-07-27  2:51         ` Trond Myklebust

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=86oem2hgv8.fsf@mendel.genehack.org \
    --to=jacobs@genehack.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.