On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 12:12 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 21:08 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> writes:
> > > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 12:28 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > If an automount mount is clone(2)ed into a file system that is
> > > > > propagation private, when it later expires in the originating
> > > > > namespace subsequent calls to autofs ->d_automount() for that
> > > > > dentry in the original namespace will return ELOOP until the
> > > > > mount is manually umounted in the cloned namespace.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the same way, if an autofs mount is triggered by automount(8)
> > > > > running within a container the dentry will be seen as mounted in
> > > > > the root init namespace and calls to ->d_automount() in that namespace
> > > > > will return ELOOP until the mount is umounted within the container.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, have_submounts() can return an incorect result when a mount
> > > > > exists in a namespace other than the one being checked.
> > > >
> > > > Overall this appears to be a fairly reasonable set of changes. It does
> > > > increase the expense when an actual mount point is encountered, but if
> > > > these are the desired some increase in cost when a dentry is a
> > > > mountpoint is unavoidable.
> > > >
> > > > May I ask the motiviation for this set of changes? Reading through the
> > > > changes I don't grasp why we want to change the behavior of autofs.
> > > > What problem is being solved? What are the benefits?
> > >
> > > LOL, it's all too easy for me to give a patch description that I think
> > > explains
> > > a problem I need to solve without realizing it isn't clear to others what
> > > the
> > > problem is, sorry about that.
> > >
> > > For quite a while now, and not that frequently but consistently, I've been
> > > getting reports of people using autofs getting ELOOP errors and not being
> > > able
> > > to mount automounts.
> > >
> > > This has been due to the cloning of autofs file systems (that have active
> > > automounts at the time of the clone) by other systems.
> > >
> > > An unshare, as one example, can easily result in the cloning of an autofs
> > > file
> > > system that has active mounts which shows this problem.
> > >
> > > Once an active mount that has been cloned is expired in the namespace that
> > > performed the unshare it can't be (auto)mounted again in the the
> > > originating
> > > namespace because the mounted check in the autofs module will think it is
> > > already mounted.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure this is a clear description either, hopefully it is enough to
> > > demonstrate the type of problem I'm typing to solve.
> > So to rephrase the problem is that an autofs instance can stop working
> > properly from the perspective of the mount namespace it is mounted in
> > if the autofs instance is shared between multiple mount namespaces. The
> > problem is that mounts and unmounts do not always propogate between
> > mount namespaces. This lack of symmetric mount/unmount behavior
> > leads to mountpoints that become unusable.
> That's right.
> It's also worth considering that symmetric mount propagation is usually not
> behaviour needed either and things like LXC and Docker are set propagation
> because of problems caused by propagation back to the parent namespace.
> So a mount can be triggered within a container, mounted by the automount
> in the parent namespace, and propagated to the child and similarly for
> which is the common use case now.
> > Which leads to the question what is the expected new behavior with your
> > patchset applied. New mounts can be added in the parent mount namespace
> > (because the test is local). Does your change also allow the
> > autofs mountpoints to be used in the other mount namespaces that share
> > the autofs instance if everything becomes unmounted?
> The problem occurs when the subordinate namespace doesn't deal with these
> propagated mounts properly, although they can obviously be used by the
> subordinate namespace.
> > Or is it expected that other mount namespaces that share an autofs
> > instance will get changes in their mounts via mount propagation and if
> > mount propagation is insufficient they are on their own.
> Namespaces that receive updates via mount propagation from a parent will
> continue to function as they do now.
> Mounts that don't get updates via mount propagation will retain the mount to
> if they need to, as they would without this change, but the originating
> namespace will also continue to function as expected.
> The child namespace needs cleanup its mounts on exit, which it had to do prior
> to this change also.
> > I believe this is a question of how do notifications of the desire for
> > an automount work after your change, and are those notifications
> > consistent with your desired and/or expected behavior.
> It sounds like you might be assuming the service receiving these cloned mounts
> actually wants to use them or is expecting them to behave like automount
> But that's not what I've seen and is not the way these cloned mounts behave
> without the change.
> However, as has probably occurred to you by now, there is a semantic change
> this for namespaces that don't receive mount propogation.
> If a mount request is triggered by an access in the subordinate namespace for
> dentry that is already mounted in the parent namespace it will silently fail
> that a mount won't appear in the subordinate namespace) rather than getting an
> ELOOP error as it would now.
My mistake, sorry, looking at this again this case will still fail with ELOOP as
it does now.