linux-kernel - Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:24:35 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc:	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>,
	"'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:37:13 -0400 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:07 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > I am re-sending this after help from Ian and git-bisect. To me it's a
> > show-stopper: I cannot find an acceptable workaround that I can implement.
> > 
> > The problem: upgrading to 2.6.23-rc4 from 2.6.22 causes several autofs
> > mounts to fail silently - they just not appear when they should.
> > 
> > I believe it's caused by the NFS change that forces multiple mounts from
> > different directories under the same server side filesystem to have the same
> > mount options by default, otherwise it returns EBUSY.
> > 
> > For example, if server has a filesystem /a, and it exports /a/x and /a/y
> > (maybe with rw or ro), and a client must mount /a/x and /a/y with the same
> > mount options now.
> 
> Which is better than having it fail silently, or giving you a mount with
> the wrong mount options.
> 
> If you need to mount the same filesystem with incompatible mount options
> on the same client, then there is a new mount option "nosharecache",
> which enables it.
> The new option is there in order to make it damned clear to sysadmins
> that this is a dangerous thing to do: mounts which don't share the same
> superblock also don't share the same data and attribute caches. Any file
> or directory which appears in both mounts had better only be used by one
> application at a time or be using an appropriate locking scheme.
> 

If we're going to send a message to sysadmins, we shouldn't force them to go
through a git bisection search and a lkml discussion to receive it!

Is there at least some way in which the kernel can detect this situation
and emit a friendly printk which guides people to a friendly document?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/