Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230928130147.564503-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20230928130147.564503-2-mszeredi@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230928130147.564503-2-mszeredi@redhat.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:52:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguTQvA6cq-3JCEZx6wP+nvZX8E6_77pNRJUU2_S7cyAiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] add unique mount ID
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
        Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@gmail.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 15:03, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> If a mount is released then its mnt_id can immediately be reused.  This is
> bad news for user interfaces that want to uniquely identify a mount.
>
> Implementing a unique mount ID is trivial (use a 64bit counter).
> Unfortunately userspace assumes 32bit size and would overflow after the
> counter reaches 2^32.
>
> Introduce a new 64bit ID alongside the old one.  Initialize the counter to
> 2^32, this guarantees that the old and new IDs are never mixed up.

It occurred to me that it might make sense to make this counter
per-namespace.  That would allow more separation between namespaces,
like preventing the observation of mount creations in other
namespaces.

Does a global number make any sense?

Thanks,
Miklos