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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:00:22 -0500
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
Cc:     David Howells <>,,
        John Johansen <>,
        Tejun Heo <>,,
        Paul Moore <>,
        Li Zefan <>,,,
        Casey Schaufler <>,,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Eric Biggers <>,,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Stephen Smalley <>,,,,,, Miklos Szeredi <>
Subject: Re: BUG: Mount ignores mount options

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 04:11:31PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>> Yes.  Since you *absolutely* *insist* on this being fixed *right* *now* *or*
>> *else*, I'm working up a set of additional patches to give userspace the
>> option of whether they want no sharing; sharing, but only with exactly the
>> same parameters; or to ignore the parameter differences and just accept
>> sharing of what's already already mounted (ie. the current behaviour).
> But there's no way to support "no sharing", at least not in the
> general case.  A file system can only be mounted once, and without
> file system support, there's no way for a file system to be mounted
> with the bsddf or minixdf mount simultaneously.
> Even *with* file system support, there's no way today for the VFS to
> keep track of whether a pathname resolution came through one
> mountpoint or another, so I can't do something like this:
> 	mount /dev/sdXX -o casefold /android-data
> 	mount /dev/sdXX -o nocasefold /android-data-2
> Which is a pity, since if we could we could much more easily get rid
> of the horror which is Android's wrapfs...
> So if the file system has been mounted with one set of mount options,
> and you want to try to mount it with a conflicting set of mount
> options and you don't want it to silently ignore the mount options,
> the *only* thing we can today is to refuse the mount and return an
> error.  
> I'm not sure Eric would really consider that an improvement for the
> container use case....

I think I would consider it an improvement.  I keep running into cases
where the mount options differed and something was done silently and
that causes problems.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists