Message-ID: <ea2e81b7-10e1-88f3-bfcb-e36afc5567d6@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 07:36:24 +0200
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Questions re the new mount_setattr(2) manual page

Hello Christian,

Thanks for the answers.

A couple of small queries still below.

On 8/11/21 12:07 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:06:52PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:

[...]

>>>>>       EINVAL The mount that is to be ID mapped is not a
>>>>>              detached/anonymous mount; that is, the mount is
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> What is a the distinction between "detached" and "anonymous"?
>>>> Or do you mean them to be synonymous? If so, then let's use
>>>> just one term, and I think "detached" is preferable.
>>>
>>> Yes, they are synonymous here. I list both because detached can
>>> potentially be confusing. A detached mount is a mount that has not been
>>> visible in the filesystem. But if you attached it an then unmount it
>>> right after and keep the fd for the mountpoint open it's a detached
>>> mount purely on a natural language level, I'd argue. But it's not a
>>> detached mount from the kernel's view anymore because it has been
>>> exposed in the filesystem and is thus not detached anymore.
>>> But I do prefer "detached" to "anonymous" and that confusion is very
>>> unlikely to occur.
>>
>> Thanks. I made it "detached". Elsewhere, the page already explains
>> that a detached mount is one that:
>>
>>           must have been created by calling open_tree(2) with the
>>           OPEN_TREE_CLONE flag and it must not already have been
>>           visible in the filesystem.
>>
>> Which seems a fine explanation. 
>>
>> ????
>> But, just a thought... "visible in the filesystem" seems not quite accurate. 
>> What you really mean I guess is that it must not already have been
>> /visible in the filesystem hierarchy/previously mounted/something else/,
>> right?

I suppose that I should have clarified that my main problem was
that you were using the word "filesystem" in a way that I find
unconventional/ambiguous. I mean, I normally take the term
"filesystem" to be "a storage system for folding files".
Here, you are using "filesystem" to mean something else, what 
I might call like "the single directory hierarchy" or "the
filesystem hierarchy" or "the list of mount points".

> A detached mount is created via the OPEN_TREE_CLONE flag. It is a
> separate new mount so "previously mounted" is not applicable.
> A detached mount is _related_ to what the MS_BIND flag gives you with
> mount(2). However, they differ conceptually and technically. A MS_BIND
> mount(2) is always visible in the fileystem when mount(2) returns, i.e.
> it is discoverable by regular path-lookup starting within the
> filesystem.
> 
> However, a detached mount can be seen as a split of MS_BIND into two
> distinct steps:
> 1. fd_tree = open_tree(OPEN_TREE_CLONE): create a new mount
> 2. move_mount(fd_tree, <somewhere>):     attach the mount to the filesystem
> 
> 1. and 2. together give you the equivalent of MS_BIND.
> In between 1. and 2. however the mount is detached. For the kernel
> "detached" means that an anonymous mount namespace is attached to it
> which doen't appear in proc and has a 0 sequence number (Technically,
> there's a bit of semantical argument to be made that "attached" and
> "detached" are ambiguous as they could also be taken to mean "does or
> does not have a parent mount". This ambiguity e.g. appears in
> do_move_mount(). That's why the kernel itself calls it an "anonymous
> mount". However, an OPEN_TREE_CLONE-detached mount of course doesn't
> have a parent mount so it works.).
> 
> For userspace it's better to think of detached and attached in terms of
> visibility in the filesystem or in a mount namespace. That's more
> straightfoward, more relevant, and hits the target in 90% of the cases.
> 
> However, the better and clearer picture is to say that a
> OPEN_TREE_CLONE-detached mount is a mount that has never been
> move_mount()ed. Which in turn can be defined as the detached mount has
> never been made visible in a mount namespace. Once that has happened the
> mount is irreversibly an attached mount.
> 
> I keep thinking that maybe we should just say "anonymous mount"
> everywhere. So changing the wording to:

I'm not against the word "detached". To user space, I think it is a
little more meaningful than "anonymous". For the moment, I'll stay with
"detached", but if you insist on "anonymous", I'll probably change it.

> [...]
> EINVAL The mount that is to be ID mapped is not an anonymous mount;
> that is, the mount has already been visible in a mount namespace.

I like that text *a lot* better! Thanks very much for suggesting
wordings. It makes my life much easier. 

I've made the text:

       EINVAL The mount that is to be ID mapped is not a detached
              mount; that is, the mount has not previously been
              visible in a mount namespace.

> [...]
> The mount must be an anonymous mount; that is, it must have been
> created by calling open_tree(2) with the OPEN_TREE_CLONE flag and it
> must not already have been visible in a mount namespace, i.e. it must
> not have been attached to the filesystem hierarchy with syscalls such
> as move_mount() syscall.

And that too! I've made the text:

       •  The mount must be a detached mount; that is, it must have
          been created by calling open_tree(2) with the
          OPEN_TREE_CLONE flag and it must not already have been
          visible in a mount namespace.  (To put things another way:
          the mount must not have been attached to the filesystem
          hierarchy with a system call such as move_mount(2).)

> [...]
> 
> (I'm using the formulation "with syscalls such as move_mount()" to
> future proof this. :)).

Fair enough.

>>>>>   EXAMPLES
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> Do you have a (preferably simple) example piece of code
>>>> somewhere for setting up an ID mapped mount?
>>
>> ????
>> I guess the best example is this:
>> https://github.com/brauner/mount-idmapped/
>> right?
> 
> Ah yes, sorry. I forgot to answer that yesterday. I sent you links via
> another medium but I repeat it here.
> There are two places. The link you have here is a private repo. But I've
> also merged a program alongside the fstests testsuite I merged:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/tree/src/idmapped-mounts/mount-idmapped.c
> which should be nicer and has seen reviews by Amir and Christoph.

Thanks.

[...]

>>>>>           int fd_tree = open_tree(-EBADF, source,
>>>>>                        OPEN_TREE_CLONE | OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC |
>>>>>                        AT_EMPTY_PATH | (recursive ? AT_RECURSIVE : 0));
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> What is the significance of -EBADF here? As far as I can tell, it
>>>> is not meaningful to open_tree()?
>>>
>>> I always pass -EBADF for similar reasons to [2]. Feel free to just use -1.
>>
>> ????
>> But here, both -EBADF and -1 seem to be wrong. This argument 
>> is a dirfd, and so should either be a file descriptor or the
>> value AT_FDCWD, right?
> 
> [1]: In this code "source" is expected to be absolute. If it's not
>      absolute we should fail. This can be achieved by passing -1/-EBADF,
>      afaict.

D'oh! Okay. I hadn't considered that use case for an invalid dirfd.
(And now I've done some adjustments to openat(2),which contains a
rationale for the *at() functions.)

So, now I understand your purpose, but still the code is obscure,
since

* You use a magic value (-EBADF) rather than (say) -1.
* There's no explanation (comment about) of the fact that you want
  to prevent relative pathnames.

So, I've changed the code to use -1, not -EBADF, and I've added some
comments to explain that the intent is to prevent relative pathnames.
Okay?

But, there is still the meta question: what's the problem with using
a relative pathname?

[...]

>>>>>           ret = move_mount(fd_tree, "", -EBADF, target,
>>>>>                            MOVE_MOUNT_F_EMPTY_PATH);
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> What is the significance of -EBADF here? As far as I can tell, it
>>>> is not meaningful to move_mount()?
>>>
>>> See [2].
>>
>> ????
>> As above, both -EBADF and -1 seem to be wrong. This argument 
>> is a dirfd, and so should either be a file descriptor or the
>> value AT_FDCWD, right?
> 
> See [1].

I made the same change as above.

Thanks,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists