linux-kernel - bind-mount vs second mount of the same blockdev?

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:39:57 +0300
From:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To:	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: bind-mount vs second mount of the same blockdev?

Hello.

I'm trying to understand the differences between
a bind-mount of a whole filesystem versus mounting
the same block device the second time.  Like this:

 mount -t ext3 /dev/block /mnt/a
 mount --bind /mnt/a /mnt/b

versus

 mount -t ext3 /dev/block /mnt/a
 mount -t ext3 /dev/block /mnt/b

In the second case, second mount does not happen
but the first one is "reused" instead - this is
visible in dmesg, since only once ext3fs prints
a note about the mounting.

Now, the first case is quite clear: we've one fs
visible in two places, pretty much like two hard-
links to the same file.  So things like, for
example, fcntl locking will work "from" both
ends.  But it is not that obvious in the second
case, even if we clearly have some common
"inode" in this case too.

What are the differences in behavour?

Thanks!

/mjt
--
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/