mirror of https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages
mount_setattr.2: Clarify the description of "detached" mounts
From email: >> 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).) Reported-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
45ea537cf2
commit
20e6e6ed79
|
@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ The underlying filesystem does not support ID-mapped mounts.
|
|||
.TP
|
||||
.B EINVAL
|
||||
The mount that is to be ID mapped is not a detached mount;
|
||||
that is, the mount is already visible in the filesystem.
|
||||
that is, the mount has not previously been visible in a mount namespace.
|
||||
.TP
|
||||
.B EINVAL
|
||||
A partial access-time setting was specified in
|
||||
|
@ -652,7 +652,11 @@ it must have been created by calling
|
|||
.BR open_tree (2)
|
||||
with the
|
||||
.B OPEN_TREE_CLONE
|
||||
flag and it must not already have been visible in the filesystem.
|
||||
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
|
||||
.BR move_mount (2).)
|
||||
.PP
|
||||
ID mappings can be created for user IDs, group IDs, and project IDs.
|
||||
An ID mapping is essentially a mapping of a range of user or group IDs into
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue