public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ramfs: ignore tmpfs options when we emulate it
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:16:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090614121645.GB7949@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906131456090.5069@sister.anvils>

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:15:51PM +0800, 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.
> 
[snip] 
> [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>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> ---
> 
>  fs/ramfs/inode.c |    9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- 2.6.30/fs/ramfs/inode.c	2009-06-10 04:05:27.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/fs/ramfs/inode.c	2009-06-13 14:45:33.000000000 +0100
> @@ -202,9 +202,12 @@ static int ramfs_parse_options(char *dat
>  				return -EINVAL;
>  			opts->mode = option & S_IALLUGO;
>  			break;
> -		default:
> -			printk(KERN_ERR "ramfs: bad mount option: %s\n", p);
> -			return -EINVAL;
> +		/*
> +		 * We might like to report bad mount options here;
> +		 * but traditionally ramfs has ignored all mount options,
> +		 * and as it is used as a !CONFIG_SHMEM simple substitute
> +		 * for tmpfs, better continue to ignore other mount options.
> +		 */
>  		}
>  	}
>  

Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2009-06-14 12:16 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
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 [this message]

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=20090614121645.GB7949@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --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