[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025-08-21.1755776485-stony-another-giggle-rodent-9HLjPO@cyphar.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:44:42 +1000
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>,
"Michael T. Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@...il.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] man/man2/fsconfig.2: document "new" mount API
On 2025-08-21, Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com> wrote:
> ---- On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 22:25:40 +0400 Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com> wrote ---
> > On 2025-08-09, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com> wrote:
> > > +Note that the Linux kernel reuses filesystem instances
> > > +for many filesystems,
> > > +so (depending on the filesystem being configured and parameters used)
> > > +it is possible for the filesystem instance "created" by
> > > +.B \%FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE
> > > +to, in fact, be a reference
> > > +to an existing filesystem instance in the kernel.
> > > +The kernel will attempt to merge the specified parameters
> > > +of this filesystem configuration context
> > > +with those of the filesystem instance being reused,
> > > +but some parameters may be
> > > +.IR "silently ignored" .
> >
> > While looking at this again, I realised this explanation is almost
> > certainly incorrect in a few places (and was based on a misunderstanding
> > of how sget_fc() works and how it interacts with vfs_get_tree()).
> >
> > I'll rewrite this in the next version.
>
> This recent patch seems to be relevant:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250816-debugfs-mount-opts-v3-1-d271dad57b5b@posteo.net/
I'm aware of that, I was in one of the previous threads. There are some
deeper consistency issues that I'm writing patches for at the moment.
I'm of two minds whether I should fix the behaviour and then re-send
man-pages with updated text (delaying the next round of man-page reviews
by a month) or just reduce the specificity of this text and then add
more details after it has been fixed.
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
https://www.cyphar.com/
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (266 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists