Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757555Ab3ENNIg (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 May 2013 09:08:36 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:62310 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751846Ab3ENNIe (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 May 2013 09:08:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130514130906.7f9525bf@corrin.poochiereds.net> References: <20130510102754.184cd90d@corrin.poochiereds.net> <20130514105119.66a5bc3f@corrin.poochiereds.net> <20130514130906.7f9525bf@corrin.poochiereds.net> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:08:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Mount failure due to restricted access to a point along the mount path From: Steve French To: Jeff Layton Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Kernel Mailing List , sjayaraman@novell.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3589 Lines: 92 Well at least for SMB2 we know they should be ok On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:44:48 -0500 > Steve French wrote: > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:27:54 -0400 >> > Jeff Layton wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:13:30 +0200 >> >> Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > A while ago this was discussed: >> >> > >> >> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cifs/7779 >> >> > >> >> > This is essentially a regression introduced by the shared superblock >> >> > changes in 3.0 and several SUSE customers are complaining about it. >> >> > I've created a temporary fix which reverts 29 commits related to the >> >> > shared superblock changes. It works, but it's obviously not a >> >> > permanent fix, especially since we definitely don't want to diverge >> >> > from mainline. >> >> > >> >> > Is this issue being worked on? Don't other distros have similar reports? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Miklos >> >> >> >> I don't know of anyone currently working on it. There are a couple of >> >> possible approaches to fixing it, I think: >> >> >> >> 1) if the dentries to get down to the root of the mount don't already >> >> exist, then attach some sort of "placeholder" inode that can be fleshed >> >> out later if and when the dentry is accessed via other means. >> >> >> >> 2) do something like what NFS does (see commit 54ceac45). This becomes >> >> a bit more complicated due to the fact that the server may not hand out >> >> real inode numbers and we sometimes have to fake them up. >> >> >> >> #1 is probably simpler to implement, but I'll confess that I haven't >> >> thought through all of the potential problems with it. >> >> >> > >> > So, giving this some more thought, I think #2 is really the correct way >> > to fix this. Here's the main problem though: >> > >> > Suppose someone mounts: >> > >> > //server/share/foo/bar/baz >> > >> > We make the sb->s_root point to the top level share, and then create a >> > disconnected dentry for "baz" to return from ->mount. >> > >> > Then, a little while later, //server/share gets mounted separately and >> > a user walks down to /foo/bar/baz within the same share. >> > >> > How do we ensure that we don't end up with two "baz" dentries in this >> > situation? With NFS, we can be reasonably sure that there's a 1:1 >> > correspondance of filehandle to inode. >> > >> > Under CIFS, it's possible that it's faking up inode numbers if the >> > server doesn't provide them via a UniqueID field. The only real >> > identifying info we have for the inode in that case is the pathname. >> >> Since this (support for server generated inode numbers) is most common >> case (especially with SMB2 and later) - I don't mind making dependency >> on the server supporting UniqueID for this. > > There are still some problems even when the server does supply them. We > sometimes find that they aren't suitable for various reasons or aren't > to be trusted, and the client disables server inode numbers on the fly. > > What do you do at that point if you already have 2 mounts sharing the > superblock? > > -- > Jeff Layton -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/