David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> There is a serious problem with mount options today that fsopen does not >> address. The problem is that mount options are ignored for block based >> filesystems, and any other type of filesystem that follows the same >> pattern. > > Yes. Since you *absolutely* *insist* on this being fixed *right* *now* *or* > *else*, I'm working up a set of additional patches to give userspace the > option of whether they want no sharing; sharing, but only with exactly the > same parameters; or to ignore the parameter differences and just accept > sharing of what's already already mounted (ie. the current behaviour). > > The second option, however, is not trivial as it needs to compare the fs > contexts, including the LSM parameters. To make that work, I really need to > remove the old security_mnt_opts stuff - which means I need to port btrfs to > the new context stuff. > > We discussed this yesterday, and I proposed a solution, and I'm working on it. I repeated this because after some comments from Al on IRC yesterday and Miklos's email replay. It appeared clear that I had not specified why my issue was clearly enough for people reading the thread to understand the problem that I see. > Yes, I agree it would be nice to have, but it *doesn't* really need supporting > right this minute, since what I have now oughtn't to break the current > behaviour. I am really reluctant to endorse anything that propagates the issues of the current interface in the new mount interface. Eric
