Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-28 Thread Johannes Berg
Hi, > > I'd argue though that this doesn't count as fixing the regression, since > > the kernel was fine before the changes there (even before porting hostfs > > to the new API) with _any_ version of userspace. Except perhaps for when > > there's a comma in the path, which I suppose would've broke

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-28 Thread Karel Zak
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 02:15:54PM GMT, Johannes Berg wrote: > Let me try to unify the threads, and perhaps further my understanding - > you seem to already have much more of that than me :) > > > > > But this is still a regression, so we need to figure out what to do > > > > short term? > > > >

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-27 Thread Hongbo Li
On 2024/11/27 20:02, Karel Zak wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 09:26:46AM GMT, Hongbo Li wrote: On 2024/11/26 21:50, Johannes Berg wrote: On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 18:43 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: The long-term solution would be to clean up hostfs and use named variables, such as "mount -t hostf

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-27 Thread Johannes Berg
Let me try to unify the threads, and perhaps further my understanding - you seem to already have much more of that than me :) > > > But this is still a regression, so we need to figure out what to do > > > short term? > > > > > So for short term, even long term, can we consider handling the hostf

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-27 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Karel, On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 02:50:38PM GMT, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 18:43 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > > The long-term solution would be to clean up hostfs and use named > > > variables, such as "mount -t hostfs none

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-27 Thread Karel Zak
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 09:26:46AM GMT, Hongbo Li wrote: > > > On 2024/11/26 21:50, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 18:43 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > > > > > The long-term solution would be to clean up hostfs and use named > > > variables, such as "mount -t hostfs none -o 'path="/

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-27 Thread Karel Zak
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 02:50:38PM GMT, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 18:43 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > > > The long-term solution would be to clean up hostfs and use named > > variables, such as "mount -t hostfs none -o 'path="/home/hostfs"'. > > That's what Hongbo's commit *did*,

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-26 Thread Hongbo Li
On 2024/11/26 21:50, Johannes Berg wrote: On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 18:43 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: The long-term solution would be to clean up hostfs and use named variables, such as "mount -t hostfs none -o 'path="/home/hostfs"'. That's what Hongbo's commit *did*, afaict, but it is a regressio

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-26 Thread Johannes Berg
On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 18:43 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > The long-term solution would be to clean up hostfs and use named > variables, such as "mount -t hostfs none -o 'path="/home/hostfs"'. That's what Hongbo's commit *did*, afaict, but it is a regression. Now most of the regression is that with

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-25 Thread Karel Zak
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 09:53:06PM GMT, Hongbo Li wrote: > > > The options has been always parsed by mount(8) and it's very fragile > > > to assume that kernel get as in the original order (etc.). > > > > > > For decades, commas have been supported in mount options. For example, > > > SeLinux uses

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-21 Thread Hongbo Li
On 2024/11/13 9:23, Hongbo Li wrote: On 2024/11/13 4:10, Karel Zak wrote:   Hi, On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 09:16:18AM GMT, Hongbo Li wrote: We are discussing about the hostfs mount with new mount API in [1]. And may need your help. After finishing the conversion to the new mount API for h

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-12 Thread Hongbo Li
On 2024/11/13 4:10, Karel Zak wrote: Hi, On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 09:16:18AM GMT, Hongbo Li wrote: We are discussing about the hostfs mount with new mount API in [1]. And may need your help. After finishing the conversion to the new mount API for hostfs, it encountered a situation where t

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-12 Thread Karel Zak
Hi, On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 09:16:18AM GMT, Hongbo Li wrote: > We are discussing about the hostfs mount with new mount API in [1]. And may > need your help. > > After finishing the conversion to the new mount API for hostfs, it > encountered a situation where the old version supported only one

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-10 Thread Hongbo Li
Hi Karel, We are discussing about the hostfs mount with new mount API in [1]. And may need your help. After finishing the conversion to the new mount API for hostfs, it encountered a situation where the old version supported only one mount option, and the whole mount option was used as the r

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-07 Thread Hongbo Li
On 2024/11/7 21:09, Johannes Berg wrote: Hi, So took me a while to grok the context, and to understand why it was working for me, and broken on another machine... I have read the context in [1]. It seems your tool has already used new mount api to mount the hostfs. Yes, however, that's a

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-07 Thread Johannes Berg
On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 22:17 +0800, Hongbo Li wrote: > > There's only one option anyway, so I'd think we just need to fix this > > and not require the hostfs= key. Perhaps if and only if it starts with > > hostfs= we can treat it as a key, otherwise treat it all as a dir? But I > > May be we can do

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-07 Thread Johannes Berg
Hi, So took me a while to grok the context, and to understand why it was working for me, and broken on another machine... > I have read the context in [1]. It seems your tool has already used new > mount api to mount the hostfs. Yes, however, that's a default that's entirely transparent to the

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-06 Thread Hongbo Li
Hi Ritesh and Benjamin, I have read the context in [1]. It seems your tool has already used new mount api to mount the hostfs. It now rejects unknown mount options as many other filesystems do regardless of its earlier behavior (which treats any option as the root directory in hostfs). Thi

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-06 Thread Benjamin Berg
Hi, I am probably not the right person to talk to. Maybe Hongbo Li can say more? That said, it looks like the filesystem now has the "hostfs" option. So you can probably just use mount -t hostfs -o hostfs=/path none /mount/point which is nicer anyway. Just a bit annoying as you probably need to

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-11-06 Thread Ritesh Raj Sarraf
Hello Benjamin, On Thu, 2024-10-31 at 11:07 +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote: > Hi, > > Newer kernels have become more picky about that with the new mount > API. > This is relevant, see the discussion about "Unknown options": >   https://lwn.net/Articles/979166/ > > We only use hostfs for the root fil

Re: UML mount failure with Linux 6.11

2024-10-31 Thread Benjamin Berg
Hi, Newer kernels have become more picky about that with the new mount API. This is relevant, see the discussion about "Unknown options": https://lwn.net/Articles/979166/ We only use hostfs for the root file system and in that case it works well if you pass the path using "hostfs=/path" on the