[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56D0B782.20606@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:37:22 +0100
From: Stanislav Brabec <sbrabec@...e.cz>
To: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs
sub-volumes
On Feb 26, 2016 at 21:05 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> It's kind of interesting, but I can't reproduce _any_ of this behavior
> with either ext4 or BTRFS when I manually set up the loop devices and
> point mount(8) at those instead of using -o loop on a file. That really
> seems to indicate that this is caused by something mount(8) is doing
> when it's calling losetup.
Behavior of "-oloop" is more similar to "losetup -f /fs.img"? than to
"losetup /dev/loop0 /fs.img".
Anyway, I can reproduce without -oloop:
# losetup /dev/loop0 /btrfs.img
# mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/1
# grep /mnt /proc/self/mountinfo
107 59 0:59 /d0/dd0/ddd0/s1/d1/dd1/ddd1/s2 /mnt/1 rw,relatime shared:45 - btrfs /dev/loop0 rw,space_cache,subvolid=257,subvol=/d0/dd0/ddd0/s1/d1/dd1/ddd1/s2
# losetup /dev/loop1 /btrfs.img
# mount -osubvol=/ /dev/loop1 /mnt/2
# grep /mnt /proc/self/mountinfo
107 59 0:59 /d0/dd0/ddd0/s1/d1/dd1/ddd1/s2 /mnt/1 rw,relatime shared:45 - btrfs /dev/loop1 rw,space_cache,subvolid=257,subvol=/d0/dd0/ddd0/s1/d1/dd1/ddd1/s2
108 59 0:59 / /mnt/2 rw,relatime shared:48 - btrfs /dev/loop1 rw,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/
# uname -a
Linux oct 4.4.1-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Feb 15 11:03:27 UTC 2016 (6398c2d) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
(Note that the system was freshly rebooted. After other experiments,
the second line of mountinfo can be missing completely.)
>> 2) mount(2) called after the reproducer returns OK but does nothing.
>>
> OK, we've determined that mount(2) is misbehaving. That doesn't change
> the fact that mount(8) is triggering this, and therefore should itself
> be corrected.
> Assume that mount(2) gets fixed so it doesn't lose it's
> mind and /proc/self/mountinfo doesn't change. There will still be
> issues resulting from mount(8)'s behavior:
> 1. BTRFS will lose it's mind and corrupt data when using a multi-device
> filesystem (due to the problems with duplicate FS UUID's).
> 2. XFS might have similar issues to 1 when using metadata checksumming,
> although it's more likely that it won't allow the second mount to succeed.
> 3. Most other filesystems will likely end up corrupting data.
Do I understand, that you are saying:
Yes, mounting multiple loop devices associated with one file is a
legitimate use, but mount(8) should never do it, because it has other
ugly side effects?
OK, it looks like a next task for mount(8) to fix.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravem,
Stanislav Brabec
software developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@...e.com
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists