From: Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbroz@redhat.com,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: print warning when mount flags was ignored
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:28:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120419102857.GA13436@x2.net.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1334826475-11606-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:07:55AM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Some mount flags can conflict with each other so they can not be
> handled together. Currently when conflicting flags are specified,
> some of them are silently ignored putting user in believe that
> they was handled correctly.
Unfortunately, it's not so simple ;-)
> - if (flags & MS_REMOUNT)
> + if (flags & MS_REMOUNT) {
> retval = do_remount(&path, flags & ~MS_REMOUNT, mnt_flags,
> data_page);
> - else if (flags & MS_BIND)
> + flags &= ~MS_REMOUNT;
This is incorrect, the flags may also include many others flags. For
example MS_REMOUNT|MS_BIND|MS_RDONLY is valid (see do_remoun() code).
And it's normal that for "mount -o remount" the mount command reads
flags from mtab/fstab so it includes for example MS_RELATIME, ...
> + } else if (flags & MS_BIND) {
> retval = do_loopback(&path, dev_name, flags & MS_REC);
> - else if (flags & (MS_SHARED | MS_PRIVATE | MS_SLAVE | MS_UNBINDABLE))
> + flags &= ~MS_BIND;
what about MS_REC ?
> + } else if (flags & (MS_SHARED | MS_PRIVATE |
> + MS_SLAVE | MS_UNBINDABLE)) {
> retval = do_change_type(&path, flags);
> - else if (flags & MS_MOVE)
> + flags &= ~(MS_SHARED | MS_PRIVATE | MS_SLAVE | MS_UNBINDABLE);
what about MS_REC ?
Note that do_change_type() already checks for unexpected flags and
returns -EINVAL if more flags are specified.
> + } else if (flags & MS_MOVE) {
> retval = do_move_mount(&path, dev_name);
> - else
> + flags &= ~MS_MOVE;
> + } else
> retval = do_new_mount(&path, type_page, flags, mnt_flags,
> dev_name, data_page);
> +
> + flags &= (MS_REMOUNT | MS_BIND | MS_SHARED | MS_PRIVATE |
> + MS_SLAVE | MS_UNBINDABLE | MS_MOVE);
> +
> + if (!retval && flags)
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s(%u): (%s -> %s) Conflicting mount flags"
> + " specified. These flags has been "
> + "ignored: %#.8lx\n", __func__, current->pid,
> + dev_name, dir_name, flags);
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-19 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-19 9:07 [PATCH] fs: print warning when mount flags was ignored Lukas Czerner
2012-04-19 10:28 ` Karel Zak [this message]
2012-04-19 11:49 ` Lukas Czerner
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=20120419102857.GA13436@x2.net.home \
--to=kzak@redhat.com \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbroz@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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