These pages split out extra errors for some APIs into a separate
list. Probably, the pages are easier to ready if all errors are
combined into a single list.
Note that there still remain a few pages where the errors are
listed separately for different APIs. For the moment, it seems
best to leave those pages as is, since the error lists are
largely distinct in those pages.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
These split out errors into separate lists (perhaps per API,
perhaps "may" vs "shall", perhaps "Linux-specific" vs
standard(??)), but there's no good reason to do this. It makes
the error list harder to read, and is inconsistent with other
pages. So, combine the errors into a single list.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Many times, these pages use the terminology "mount point", where
"mount" would be better. A "mount point" is the location at which
a mount is attached. A "mount" is an association between a
filesystem and a mount point.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Linux 5.8 adds STATX_MNT_ID and stx_mnt_id.
Add description to statx.2
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
From email with Christian Brauner:
>>>>>> 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?
Sounds good.
>
> But, there is still the meta question: what's the problem with using
> a relative pathname?
Nothing per se. Ok, you asked so it's your fault:
When writing programs I like to never use relative paths with AT_FDCWD
because. Because making assumptions about the current working directory
of the calling process is just too easy to get wrong; especially when
pivot_root() or chroot() are in play.
My absolut preference (joke intended) is to open a well-known starting
point with an absolute path to get a dirfd and then scope all future
operations beneath that dirfd. This already works with old-style
openat() and _very_ cautious programming but openat2() and its
resolve-flag space have made this **chef's kiss**.
If I can't operate based on a well-known dirfd I use absolute paths with
a -EBADF dirfd passed to *at() functions.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
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>
From email with Christian Braner:
> [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.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Make the description of the EBADF error for invalid 'dirfd' more
uniform. In particular, note that the error only occurs when the
pathname is relative, and that it occurs when the 'dirfd' is
neither valid *nor* has the value AT_FDCWD.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
In particular, specifying an invalid file descriptor number
in 'dirfd' can be used as a check that 'pathname' is absolute.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Phrases such as "In the new mount API" will date fast. Remove it.
Also:
* Make it clear that MOUNT_ATTR__ATIME expresses a bit field.
* Replace 'enum' with 'enumeration'.
* Clarify what is meant by "partially" set MOUNT_ATTR__ATIME.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
These types are already well described in mount_namespaces(7);
indeed, much of the text from that page seems to have just been
cut and pasted into this page! Simply referring the reader to
mount_namespaces(7) is sufficient.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Point out that this field can have the value zero, meaning
no change. And avoid discussions of 'enum', and simply say
that otherwise the field has one of the MS_* values.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Having this discussion under DESCRIPTION clutters that section,
and has the effect of burying the discussion of propagation. Move
the discussion to NOTES, to make the page more readable.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Michael Kerrisk