[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfs: reject completely bogus remount options

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfs: reject completely bogus remount options
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:11:18 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5258A884.7000104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52584C8A.1060808@xxxxxxxxxx> <52584D56.7090902@xxxxxxxxxxx> <52586ED8.3030804@xxxxxxx> <5258A884.7000104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 10/11/13 20:40, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/11/13 4:34 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 10/11/13 14:11, Eric Sandeen wrote:
There's a long comment about handling non-remountable
options in xfs_fs_remount, but nothing addresses the case
of completely bogus mount options at remount time, which
can lead to some severe strangeness:

# for I in `seq 1 10`; do mount -o remount,noacl /mnt/test2; done
# for I in `seq 1 10`; do mount -o remount,badoption /mnt/test2; done
# grep sdb4 /etc/mtab
/dev/sdb4 /mnt/test2 xfs 
 0 0

This is a bit of a hack, but we can re-use xfs_parseargs()
with a dummy mount struct to just vet all of the remount
options which were passed in.  With this, we get a saner

[44898.102990] EXT4-fs (sdb4): Unrecognized mount option "badoption" or missing 

if we try to remount with something ridiculous.

In the long run we should probably revamp a lot of the mount option

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

I don't seem to get the duplicate mtab entries on a top of tree kernel.
Is this still appropriate?

Maybe different mount(8) behavior on your system?  (probably symlinked to 


# mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/test
# for I in `seq 1 10`; do mount -o remount,noacl /mnt/test; done
# mount | grep sdb1
/dev/sdb1 on /mnt/test type xfs 
# uname -a
Linux hostname 3.12.0-rc4+ #41 SMP Fri Oct 11 19:43:01 CDT 2013 x86_64 x86_64 
x86_64 GNU/Linux


Yep, confirmed the described behavior on a RHEL 6 box without patch.
The patch looks good.

Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>