[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26064.1531440190@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 01:03:10 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/32] vfs: syscall: Add fsopen() to prepare for superblock creation [ver #9]
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >> I tend to think that this *should* fail using the new API. The semantics
> >> of the second mount request are bizarre at best.
> >
> > You still have to support existing behaviour lest you break userspace.
> >
>
> I assume the existing behavior is that a bind mount is created? If so, the
> new mount(8) tool could do it in user code.
You have a race there.
Also you can't currently directly create a bind mount from userspace as you
can only bind from another path point - which you may not be able to access
(either by permission failure or because it's not in your mount namespace).
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists