From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ramfs: ignore tmpfs options when we emulate it
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:51:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1244919085.4496.192.camel@calx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906131456090.5069@sister.anvils>
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 15:15 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > On systems where CONFIG_SHMEM is disabled, mounting tmpfs filesystems can
> > fail when tmpfs options are used. This is because tmpfs creates a small
> > wrapper around ramfs which rejects unknown options, and ramfs itself only
> > supports a tiny subset of what tmpfs supports. This makes it pretty hard
> > to use the same userspace systems across different configuration systems.
> > As such, ramfs should ignore the tmpfs options when tmpfs is merely a
> > wrapper around ramfs.
>
> Yes, indeed, thanks a lot for reporting this.
>
> But I'm uneasy with making ramfs behaviour differ with CONFIG_SHMEM
> (perhaps that's silly: certainly tmpfs behaviour differs with it),
> and uneasy with coding a list of options we need to remember to keep
> in synch with mm/shmem.c. It's easier to justify ignoring all options,
> than rejecting some while ignoring others yet not respecting them.
>
> >
> > This used to work before commit c3b1b1cbf0 as previously, ramfs would
> > ignore all options. But now, we get:
> > ramfs: bad mount option: size=10M
> > mount: mounting mdev on /dev failed: Invalid argument
>
> I rather think the correct response to bugzilla #12843 should have
> been to say, either use chmod 1777 yourself, or use CONFIG_SHMEM=y.
> I fear we'll now get a line of requests for support of uid, gid, ...
> in ramfs; whereas ramfs is about blind simplicity, not feature bloat.
> However, that mode= feature is now in, so I guess we ride with it.
Ugh, hadn't noticed that go by.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> > ---
> > another option might be to restore the previous behavior where ramfs simply
> > ignored all unknown mount options ...
>
> Yes, that would be my preference, return to the blind simplicity, with
> that one exception for mode=. Alternative patch suggested at the bottom,
> let's see if Cc's added feel strongly about it one way or another.
> Thanks,
> Hugh
>
> >
> > fs/ramfs/inode.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ramfs/inode.c b/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> > index 3a6b193..57a797c 100644
> > --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> > @@ -203,6 +203,16 @@ static int ramfs_parse_options(char *data, struct ramfs_mount_opts *opts)
> > opts->mode = option & S_IALLUGO;
> > break;
> > default:
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_SHMEM
> > + /* If tmpfs is using us to emulate it, ignore its options */
> > + if (!strncmp(p, "gid=", 4) ||
> > + !strncmp(p, "mpol=", 5) ||
> > + !strncmp(p, "nr_blocks=", 10) ||
> > + !strncmp(p, "nr_inodes=", 10) ||
> > + !strncmp(p, "size=", 5) ||
> > + !strncmp(p, "uid=", 4))
> > + continue;
> > +#endif
> > printk(KERN_ERR "ramfs: bad mount option: %s\n", p);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > --
> > 1.6.3.1
>
> [PATCH] ramfs: ignore unknown mount options
>
> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
>
> On systems where CONFIG_SHMEM is disabled, mounting tmpfs filesystems can
> fail when tmpfs options are used. This is because tmpfs creates a small
> wrapper around ramfs which rejects unknown options, and ramfs itself only
> supports a tiny subset of what tmpfs supports. This makes it pretty hard
> to use the same userspace systems across different configuration systems.
> As such, ramfs should ignore the tmpfs options when tmpfs is merely a
> wrapper around ramfs.
>
> This used to work before commit c3b1b1cbf0 as previously, ramfs would
> ignore all options. But now, we get:
> ramfs: bad mount option: size=10M
> mount: mounting mdev on /dev failed: Invalid argument
>
> Another option might be to restore the previous behavior, where ramfs
> simply ignored all unknown mount options ... which is what Hugh prefers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Acked-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-13 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-13 6:02 [PATCH] ramfs: ignore tmpfs options when we emulate it Mike Frysinger
2009-06-13 14:15 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-06-13 14:20 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-13 18:51 ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2009-06-14 10:01 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 10:20 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-14 10:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 10:39 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-06-14 10:48 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 16:00 ` Matt Mackall
2009-06-14 21:56 ` [PATCH] ramfs: ignore unknown mount options Hugh Dickins
2009-06-14 10:42 ` [PATCH] ramfs: ignore tmpfs options when we emulate it Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 10:46 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-14 11:14 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 11:26 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-14 11:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 11:58 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-14 12:14 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-14 12:16 ` Wu Fengguang
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=1244919085.4496.192.camel@calx \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox