Re: [PATCH] Add MS_BIND_FLAGS mount flag

[Miklos Szeredi]

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  > For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
> >  > inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
> >  > inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
> >
> >  This is rather strange behavior.  I think it would be much better, if
> >  setting mount flags would work for recursive operations as well.  Also
> >  what we really need is not resetting all the mount flags to some
> >  predetermined values, but to be able to set or clear each flag
> >  individually.
> 
> This is certainly true, but as you observe below it's a fair bit more
> fiddly to specify in the API. I wasn't sure how much people recursive
> bind mounts, so I figured I'd throw out this simpler version first.
> 
> >
> >  For example, with the per-mount-read-only thing the most useful
> >  application would be to just set the read-only flag and leave the
> >  others alone.
> >
> >  And this is where we usually conclude, that a new userspace mount API
> >  is long overdue.  So for starters, how about a new syscall for bind
> >  mounts:
> >
> >  int mount_bind(const char *src, const char *dst, unsigned flags,
> >                  unsigned mnt_flags);
> 
> The "flags" argument could be the same as for regular mount, and
> contain the mnt_flags - so the extra argument could maybe usefully be
> a "mnt_flags_mask", to indicate which flags we actually care about
> overriding.

The way I imagined it, is that mnt_flags is a mask, and the operation
(determined by flags) is either:

 - set bits in mask
 - clear bits in mask (or not in mask)
 - set flags to mask

It doesn't allow setting some bits, clearing some others, and leaving
alone the rest.  But I think such flexibility isn't really needed.
> 
> What would happen when an existing super-block flag changes to become
> a per-mount flag (e.g. per-mount read-only)? I think that would just
> fit in with the "mask" idea, as long as we complained if any bits in
> mnt_flags_mask weren't actually per-mount settable.
> 
> Being able to mask/set mount flags might be useful on a remount too,
> since there's no clean way to get the existing mount flags for a mount
> other than by scanning /proc/mounts. So an alternative to a separate
> system call would be a new mnt_flag_mask argument to mount() (whose
> presence would be indicated by a flag bit being set in the main flags)
> which would be used to control which bits were set cleared for
> remount/bind calls. Seems a bit wasteful of bits though. If we turned
> "flags" into an (optionally) 64-bit argument then we'd have plenty of
> bits to be able to specify both a "set" bit and a "mask" bit for each,
> without needing a new syscall.

The big problem, is that current sys_mount() interface is a really big
pile of random things thrown together, and not a proper API.  And just
introducing a new mount64 syscall is really making the problem worse,
by allowing more random things to be added to it.

So while creating a new clean API is harder work, it should be worth
it in the long run.

Maybe instead of messing with masks, it's better to introduce a
get_flags() or a more general mount_stat() operation, and let
userspace deal with setting and clearing flags, just as we do for
stat/chmod?

So we'd have

  mount_stat(path, stat);
  mount_bind(from, to, flags);
  mount_set_flags(path, flags);
  mount_move(from, to);

and perhaps

  mount_remount(path, opt_string, flags);

And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
suggested.

Hmm?

Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/