Re: [PATCH] virtiofsd: Show submounts

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Max Reitz (address@hidden) wrote:
> On 27.04.20 19:59, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Max Reitz (address@hidden) wrote:
> >> Currently, setup_mounts() bind-mounts the shared directory without
> >> MS_REC.  This makes all submounts disappear.
> >>
> >> Pass MS_REC so that the guest can see submounts again.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> >> Fixes: 3ca8a2b1c83eb185c232a4e87abbb65495263756
> > 
> > Should this actually be 5baa3b8e95064c2434bd9e2f312edd5e9ae275dc ?
> 
> Well, I bisected it and landed at 3ca8a2b1.  So while the problematic
> line may have been introduced by 5baa3b8e, it wasn’t used until 3ca8a2b1.

OK, I'd rather stick with the Fixes: for the patch that was actually
wrong.

> >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 
> >> b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> >> index 4c35c95b25..9d7f863e66 100644
> >> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> >> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> >> @@ -2643,7 +2643,7 @@ static void setup_mounts(const char *source)
> >>      int oldroot;
> >>      int newroot;
> >>  
> >> -    if (mount(source, source, NULL, MS_BIND, NULL) < 0) {
> >> +    if (mount(source, source, NULL, MS_BIND | MS_REC, NULL) < 0) {
> >>          fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "mount(%s, %s, MS_BIND): %m\n", source, 
> >> source);
> >>          exit(1);
> >>      }
> > 
> > Do we want MS_SLAVE to pick up future mounts that might happenf rom the
> > host?
> 
> Hm.  So first it looks to me from the man page like one shouldn’t give
> MS_SLAVE on the first mount() call but kind of only use it for remounts
> (in the list at the start, “Create a bind mount” is separate from
> “Change the propagation type of an existing mount”, and the man page
> later says “The only other flags that can be specified while changing
> the propagation type are MS_REC (described below) and MS_SILENT (which
> is ignored).”).
> 
> Second, even if I do change the propagation type to MS_SLAVE in a second
> call, mounts done after qemu has been started don’t show up in the guest
> (for me).
> 
> So while it sounds correct, I can’t see it having an effect, actually.

That's unfortunate; but I guess we can debug that separately

> > What's the interaction between this and the MS_REC|MS_SLAVE that we have
> > a few lines above for / ?
> 
> Good question.  It would seem to me that there isn’t any.  That previous
> mount call just sets MS_REC | MS_SLAVE for the whole mount namespace,
> and then we do a new mount here (by default from / to /) that needs its
> own flags.
> 
> (More interesting is perhaps why we have that other mount() call below,
> which again sets MS_REC | MS_SLAVE for the old (not-yet-bind-mounted) /.
>  I can’t imagine that to have any effect.)

Is that just trying to be careful before the umount2 so it doesn't try
to unmount something useful?

Dave

> Max
> 



--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK