Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes
From: Stanislav Brabec
Date: Fri Feb 26 2016 - 12:07:25 EST
Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-02-26 10:50, Stanislav Brabec 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.
Well, kernel could "fix" it in a simple way:
- don't allow two loop devices pointing to the same file
- don't allow two loop devices pointing to the same file being used by
Then util-linux would need a behavior change for sure.
I already found another inconsistency caused by this implementation:
I've noticed this before myself, but I've never seen any issues
/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.
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 can imagine two side effects deeply inside mount(8):
- "mount -a" uses subvol internally for a path lookup of the default
volume or volume corresponding to subvolid. (Only the GIT version,
not yet in 2.27.1.) I could imagine that the lookup is confused by a
bind mount reporting the searched subvolid and a "random" subvol
subvol. But I don't have a reproducer yet, and I am not sure,
whether it is really possible.
- "umount -a" could have a problem to find a proper order to umount(2)
without EBUSY. I did not check the algorithm, so I am not sure,
whether it is a real issue.
P. S.: There were many problems with btrfs in mount(8):
Best Regards / S pozdravem,
SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@xxxxxxxx
Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +49 911 7405384547
190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 084 001
Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/
PGP: 830B 40D5 9E05 35D8 5E27 6FA3 717C 209F A04F CD76