Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:That's just it though, from what I can tell based on what I've seen and what you said above, mount(8) isn't doing things correctly in this case. If we were to do this with something like XFS or ext4, the filesystem would probably end up completely messed up just because of the log replay code (assuming they actually mount the second time, I'm not sure what XFS would do in this case, but I believe that ext4 would allow the mount as long as the mmp feature is off). It would make sense that this behavior wouldn't have been noticed before (and probably wouldn't have mattered even if it had been), because most filesystems don't allow multiple mounts even if they're all RO, and most people don't try to mount other filesystems multiple times as a result of this. If this behavior of allocating a new loop device for each call on a given file is in fact not BTRFS specific (as implied by your statement about a possible workaround in mount(8)), then mount(8) really should be fixed to not do that before we even consider looking at the issues in BTRFS, as that is behavior that has serious potential to result in data corruption for any filesystem, not just BTRFS.
> Added linux-btrfs as this should be documented there as a known issue
> until it gets fixed (although I have no idea which side is the issue).
This is a very bad behavior, as it makes impossible to safely use btrfs
loop bind mounts in fstab. (Well, it is possible to write a work-around
in util-linux: Remember the source file, and if -oloop is specified
next time, and source file is already assigned to a loop device, use
existing loop device.)
I'm not 100% certain, but I think this is a interaction between how
BTRFS handles multiple mounts of the same filesystem on a given system
and how mount handles loop mounts. AFAIUI, all instances of a given
BTRFS filesystem being mounted on a given system are internally
identical to bind mounts of a hidden mount of that filesystem. This is
what allows both manual mounting of sub-volumes, and multiple mounting
of the FS in general.
Yes, internal implementation is the same.
But here it causes a real trouble: However both mounts point to the
same file, first and second mount use different loop device. To create
a bind mount, something ugly needs to be done. And it is done in an
I've noticed this before myself, but I've never seen any issues resulting from it; however, I've also not tried calling BTRFS related ioctls on or from such a mount, so I may just have been lucky.
I already found another inconsistency caused by this implementation:
/proc/self/mountinfo reports subvolid of the nearest upper sub-volume
root for the bind mount, not the sub-volume that was used for creating
this bind mount, and subvolid that potentially does not correspond to
any subvolume root.
This could causes problem for evaluation of order of umount(2) that
should prevent EBUSY.
I was talking about it with David Sterba, and he told, that in the
current implementation is not optimal. btrfs driver does not have
sufficient information to evaluate true root of the bind mount.
I'd be more than willing to bet that that isn't the case, loop mounts and bind mounts are entirely different inside the kernel, and I think the loop mount issue on the BTRFS side is a result of the issues it has when dealing with filesystems with the same UUID (if this is in fact the case, similar behavior should be seen when trying to either mount multiple lower level components of a multi-path device, or by manually creating multiple /dev/loop associations for the same file and mounting them all at once using the /dev/loop names instead of the file).
Maybe the same is valid for the reported loop issue, and this is just
an ugly side effect.
FWIW, it's actually possible to simulate this behavior with bind mounts by mounting the root at the eventual mount point, then bind mounting the desired directory from that root over top of it. Of course, there is almost zero practical purpose to anyone doing this on most traditional filesystems unless they're actively trying to hide data.
P. S.: There are some use differences between bind mounts and btrfs
- Bind mounts can be created for any file or directory.
- Sub-volume mounts can be created only for inodes marked as sub-volume
- Bind mounts can be mounted only if any of upper sub-volume root is
- Sub-volumes can be mounted even if volume root is not mounted.