| Message ID | 20201103164135.169325-1-mreitz@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [for-5.2] virtiofsd: Announce submounts even without statx() | expand |
* Max Reitz (mreitz@redhat.com) wrote: > Contrary to what the check (and warning) in lo_init() claims, we can > announce submounts just fine even without statx() -- the check is based > on comparing both the mount ID and st_dev of parent and child. Without > statx(), we will not have the mount ID; but we always have st_dev. > > The only problems we have (without statx() and its mount ID) are: > > (1) Mounting the same device twice may lead to both trees being treated > as exactly the same tree by virtiofsd. But that is a problem that > is completely independent of mirroring host submounts in the guest. > Both submount roots will still show the FUSE_SUBMOUNT flag, because > their st_dev still differs from their respective parent. > > (2) There is only one exception to (1), and that is if you mount a > device inside a mount of itself: Then, its st_dev will be the same > as that of its parent, and so without a mount ID, virtiofsd will not > be able to recognize the nested mount's root as a submount. > However, thanks to virtiofsd then treating both trees as exactly the > same tree, it will be caught up in a loop when the guest tries to > examine the nested submount, so the guest will always see nothing > but an ELOOP there. Therefore, this case is just fully broken > without statx(), whether we check for submounts (based on st_dev) or > not. > > All in all, checking for submounts works well even without comparing the > mount ID (i.e., without statx()). The only concern is an edge case > that, without statx() mount IDs, is utterly broken anyway. > > Thus, drop said check in lo_init(). > > Reported-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> OK, that seems to have been the outcome of the discussion here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-11/msg00500.html so Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com> > --- > tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > index ec1008bceb..6c64b03f1a 100644 > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > @@ -610,14 +610,6 @@ static void lo_init(void *userdata, struct fuse_conn_info *conn) > "does not support it\n"); > lo->announce_submounts = false; > } > - > -#ifndef CONFIG_STATX > - if (lo->announce_submounts) { > - fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "lo_init: Cannot announce submounts, there " > - "is no statx()\n"); > - lo->announce_submounts = false; > - } > -#endif > } > > static void lo_getattr(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, > -- > 2.26.2 >
On 10.11.20 19:57, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Max Reitz (mreitz@redhat.com) wrote: >> Contrary to what the check (and warning) in lo_init() claims, we can >> announce submounts just fine even without statx() -- the check is based >> on comparing both the mount ID and st_dev of parent and child. Without >> statx(), we will not have the mount ID; but we always have st_dev. >> >> The only problems we have (without statx() and its mount ID) are: >> >> (1) Mounting the same device twice may lead to both trees being treated >> as exactly the same tree by virtiofsd. But that is a problem that >> is completely independent of mirroring host submounts in the guest. >> Both submount roots will still show the FUSE_SUBMOUNT flag, because >> their st_dev still differs from their respective parent. >> >> (2) There is only one exception to (1), and that is if you mount a >> device inside a mount of itself: Then, its st_dev will be the same >> as that of its parent, and so without a mount ID, virtiofsd will not >> be able to recognize the nested mount's root as a submount. >> However, thanks to virtiofsd then treating both trees as exactly the >> same tree, it will be caught up in a loop when the guest tries to >> examine the nested submount, so the guest will always see nothing >> but an ELOOP there. Therefore, this case is just fully broken >> without statx(), whether we check for submounts (based on st_dev) or >> not. >> >> All in all, checking for submounts works well even without comparing the >> mount ID (i.e., without statx()). The only concern is an edge case >> that, without statx() mount IDs, is utterly broken anyway. >> >> Thus, drop said check in lo_init(). >> >> Reported-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> > > OK, that seems to have been the outcome of the discussion here: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-11/msg00500.html That’s right. > so > > > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com> Thanks :) Max
* Max Reitz (mreitz@redhat.com) wrote: > Contrary to what the check (and warning) in lo_init() claims, we can > announce submounts just fine even without statx() -- the check is based > on comparing both the mount ID and st_dev of parent and child. Without > statx(), we will not have the mount ID; but we always have st_dev. > > The only problems we have (without statx() and its mount ID) are: > > (1) Mounting the same device twice may lead to both trees being treated > as exactly the same tree by virtiofsd. But that is a problem that > is completely independent of mirroring host submounts in the guest. > Both submount roots will still show the FUSE_SUBMOUNT flag, because > their st_dev still differs from their respective parent. > > (2) There is only one exception to (1), and that is if you mount a > device inside a mount of itself: Then, its st_dev will be the same > as that of its parent, and so without a mount ID, virtiofsd will not > be able to recognize the nested mount's root as a submount. > However, thanks to virtiofsd then treating both trees as exactly the > same tree, it will be caught up in a loop when the guest tries to > examine the nested submount, so the guest will always see nothing > but an ELOOP there. Therefore, this case is just fully broken > without statx(), whether we check for submounts (based on st_dev) or > not. > > All in all, checking for submounts works well even without comparing the > mount ID (i.e., without statx()). The only concern is an edge case > that, without statx() mount IDs, is utterly broken anyway. > > Thus, drop said check in lo_init(). > > Reported-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> Queued > --- > tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > index ec1008bceb..6c64b03f1a 100644 > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > @@ -610,14 +610,6 @@ static void lo_init(void *userdata, struct fuse_conn_info *conn) > "does not support it\n"); > lo->announce_submounts = false; > } > - > -#ifndef CONFIG_STATX > - if (lo->announce_submounts) { > - fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "lo_init: Cannot announce submounts, there " > - "is no statx()\n"); > - lo->announce_submounts = false; > - } > -#endif > } > > static void lo_getattr(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, > -- > 2.26.2 > >
diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c index ec1008bceb..6c64b03f1a 100644 --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c @@ -610,14 +610,6 @@ static void lo_init(void *userdata, struct fuse_conn_info *conn) "does not support it\n"); lo->announce_submounts = false; } - -#ifndef CONFIG_STATX - if (lo->announce_submounts) { - fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "lo_init: Cannot announce submounts, there " - "is no statx()\n"); - lo->announce_submounts = false; - } -#endif } static void lo_getattr(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
Contrary to what the check (and warning) in lo_init() claims, we can announce submounts just fine even without statx() -- the check is based on comparing both the mount ID and st_dev of parent and child. Without statx(), we will not have the mount ID; but we always have st_dev. The only problems we have (without statx() and its mount ID) are: (1) Mounting the same device twice may lead to both trees being treated as exactly the same tree by virtiofsd. But that is a problem that is completely independent of mirroring host submounts in the guest. Both submount roots will still show the FUSE_SUBMOUNT flag, because their st_dev still differs from their respective parent. (2) There is only one exception to (1), and that is if you mount a device inside a mount of itself: Then, its st_dev will be the same as that of its parent, and so without a mount ID, virtiofsd will not be able to recognize the nested mount's root as a submount. However, thanks to virtiofsd then treating both trees as exactly the same tree, it will be caught up in a loop when the guest tries to examine the nested submount, so the guest will always see nothing but an ELOOP there. Therefore, this case is just fully broken without statx(), whether we check for submounts (based on st_dev) or not. All in all, checking for submounts works well even without comparing the mount ID (i.e., without statx()). The only concern is an edge case that, without statx() mount IDs, is utterly broken anyway. Thus, drop said check in lo_init(). Reported-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> --- tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)