ovl: print error message for invalid mount options
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/3 ovl: print error message for invalid mount options
Overlayfs should print an error message if an incorrect mount option is caught like other filesystems.
After this patch, improper option input could be clearly known.
--- fs/overlayfs/super.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
fs/overlayfs/super.c +1 -0
@@ -615,6 +615,7 @@ static int ovl_parse_opt(char *opt, struct ovl_config *config)break ;default : +pr_err ("overlayfs: unrecognized mount option \"%s\" or missing value\n" , p);return -EINVAL ; } }
Signature · 1 line
1.6.0.2
PATCH 2/3 ovl: check lowerdir amount for non-upper mount
Recently multi-lower layer mount support allow upperdir and workdir to be omitted, then cause overlayfs can be mount with only one lowerdir directory. This action make no sense and have potential risk.
This patch check the total number of lower directories to prevent mounting overlayfs with only one directory.
Also, an error message is added to indicate lower directories exceed *OVL_MAX_STACK* limit.
--- fs/overlayfs/super.c | 8 +++++++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
fs/overlayfs/super.c +7 -1
@@ -870,8 +870,14 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) err = -EINVAL ; stacklen =ovl_split_lowerdirs (lowertmp); -if (stacklen >OVL_MAX_STACK ) +if (stacklen >OVL_MAX_STACK ) { +pr_err ("overlayfs: too many lower directries, limit is %d\n" , +OVL_MAX_STACK ); goto out_free_lowertmp; + }else if (!ufs->config.upperdir && stacklen ==1 ) { +pr_err ("overlayfs: at least 2 lowerdir are needed while upperdir nonexistent\n" ); + goto out_free_lowertmp; + } stack =kcalloc (stacklen,sizeof (struct path ),GFP_KERNEL );if (!stack)
Signature · 1 line
1.6.0.2
PATCH 3/3 ovl: upper fs should not be R/O
In reply to hujianyangAfter importing multi-lower layer support, users could mount a r/o partition as the left most lowerdir instead of using it as upperdir. And a r/o upperdir may cause an error like
overlayfs: failed to create directory ./workdir/work
during mount.
This patch check the *s_flags* of upper fs and return an error if it is a r/o partition. The checking of *upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags* can be removed now.
This patch also remove
/* FIXME: workdir is not needed for a R/O mount */
from ovl_fill_super() because:
1) for upper fs r/o case
Setting a r/o partition as upper is prevented, no need to care about workdir in this case.
2) for "mount overlay -o ro" with a r/w upper fs case Users could remount overlayfs to r/w in this case, so workdir should not be omitted.
--- fs/overlayfs/super.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
fs/overlayfs/super.c +19 -5
@@ -529,8 +529,7 @@ static int ovl_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data) {struct ovl_fs *ufs = sb->s_fs_info; -if (!(*flags &MS_RDONLY ) && - (!ufs->upper_mnt || (ufs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY ))) +if (!(*flags &MS_RDONLY ) && (!ufs->upper_mnt))return -EROFS ;return 0 ;
@@ -619,6 +618,15 @@ static int ovl_parse_opt(char *opt, struct ovl_config *config)return -EINVAL ; } } + +/* Workdir is useless in non-upper mount */ +if (!config->upperdir && config->workdir) { +pr_info ("overlayfs: option \"workdir=%s\" is useless in a non-upper mount, ignore\n" , + config->workdir); +kfree (config->workdir); + config->workdir =NULL ; + } +return 0 ; }
@@ -838,7 +846,6 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) sb->s_stack_depth =0 ;if (ufs->config.upperdir) { -/* FIXME: workdir is not needed for a R/O mount */ if (!ufs->config.workdir) {pr_err ("overlayfs: missing 'workdir'\n" ); goto out_free_config;
@@ -848,6 +855,13 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)if (err) goto out_free_config; +/* Upper fs should not be r/o */ +if (upperpath.mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY ) { +pr_err ("overlayfs: upper fs is r/o, try multi-lower layers mount\n" ); + err = -EINVAL ; + goto out_put_upperpath; + } + err =ovl_mount_dir (ufs->config.workdir, &workpath);if (err) goto out_put_upperpath;
@@ -939,8 +953,8 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) ufs->numlower++; } -/* If the upper fs is r/o or nonexistent, we mark overlayfs r/o too */ -if (!ufs->upper_mnt || (ufs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY )) +/* If the upper fs is nonexistent, we mark overlayfs r/o too */ +if (!ufs->upper_mnt) sb->s_flags |=MS_RDONLY ; sb->s_d_op = &ovl_dentry_operations;
Signature · 1 line
1.6.0.2
Quoted 16 lines · hujianyang
Overlayfs should print an error message if an incorrect mount option is caught like other filesystems.
After this patch, improper option input could be clearly known.
Reported-by Fabian Sturm <[email protected]>Signed-off-by hujianyang <[email protected]>--- fs/overlayfs/super.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)fs/overlayfs/super.c +0
-0
fs/overlayfs/super.c static int ovl_parse_opt(char *opt, struct ovl_config *config) · line 618
Quoted 4 lines
fs/overlayfs/super.c +1
-0@@ -615,6 +615,7 @@ static int ovl_parse_opt(char *opt, struct ovl_config *config)break ;default : +pr_err ("overlayfs: unrecognized mount option \"%s\" or missing value\n" , p);
Hi Miklos,
I'm sorry. The parameter "p" should begin with a new line.
I'd like to resend a new patch after you review these patches.
Thanks,
Hu
Quoted 4 lines
fs/overlayfs/super.c +0
-0return -EINVAL ; } }
Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: upper fs should not be R/O
In reply to hujianyangQuoted 102 lines · hujianyang
After importing multi-lower layer support, users could mount a r/o partition as the left most lowerdir instead of using it as upperdir. And a r/o upperdir may cause an error like
overlayfs: failed to create directory ./workdir/work
during mount.
This patch check the *s_flags* of upper fs and return an error if it is a r/o partition. The checking of *upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags* can be removed now.
This patch also remove
/* FIXME: workdir is not needed for a R/O mount */from
ovl_fill_super()because:1) for upper fs r/o case
Setting a r/o partition as upper is prevented, no need to care about workdir in this case.2) for "mount overlay -o ro" with a r/w upper fs case Users could remount overlayfs to r/w in this case, so workdir should not be omitted.
Signed-off-by hujianyang <[email protected]>---
fs/overlayfs/super.c| 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)fs/overlayfs/super.c +1
-2@@ -529,8 +529,7 @@ static int ovl_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data) {struct ovl_fs *ufs = sb->s_fs_info; -if (!(*flags &MS_RDONLY ) && - (!ufs->upper_mnt || (ufs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))) +if (!(*flags &MS_RDONLY ) && (!ufs->upper_mnt))return -EROFS ;return 0;fs/overlayfs/super.c +9
-0@@ -619,6 +618,15 @@ static int ovl_parse_opt(char *opt, struct ovl_config *config)return -EINVAL ; } } + +/* Workdir is useless in non-upper mount */ +if (!config->upperdir && config->workdir) { + pr_info("overlayfs: option \"workdir=%s\" is useless in a non-upper mount, ignore\n", + config->workdir); +kfree (config->workdir); + config->workdir =NULL ; + } +return 0 ;}
fs/overlayfs/super.c +0
-1@@ -838,7 +846,6 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) sb->s_stack_depth = 0;if (ufs->config.upperdir) { -/* FIXME: workdir is not needed for a R/O mount */ if (!ufs->config.workdir) {pr_err ("overlayfs: missing 'workdir'\n" );goto out_free_config;fs/overlayfs/super.c +7
-0@@ -848,6 +855,13 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) if (err) goto out_free_config; +/* Upper fs should not be r/o */ +if (upperpath.mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY ) { +pr_err ("overlayfs: upper fs is r/o, try multi-lower layers mount\n"); + err = -EINVAL ; + goto out_put_upperpath; + } + err =ovl_mount_dir (ufs->config.workdir, &workpath);if (err) goto out_put_upperpath;fs/overlayfs/super.c +2
-2@@ -939,8 +953,8 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent) ufs->numlower++; } -/* If the upper fs is r/o or nonexistent, we mark overlayfs r/o too */ -if (!ufs->upper_mnt || (ufs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY )) +/* If the upper fs is nonexistent, we mark overlayfs r/o too */ +if (!ufs->upper_mnt) sb->s_flags |=MS_RDONLY ;
Quoted 1 line
sb->s_d_op = &ovl_dentry_operations;
It works fine to me.
And I think it is better than my implementation : )
Thanks.
Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: upper fs should not be R/O
Just one question. If each r/o layer does not require a workdir, why would a stack of r/o layers require one - and hence the requirement that the top layer must be r/w?
Does it has to do with why workdir was introduced in the first place? Sorry but I couldn't find information about why workdir was introduced. I suppose it was to support some functions that older versions can't.
Alex
Quoted 117 lines · Seunghun Lee
Quoted 102 lines · hujianyang
After importing multi-lower layer support, users could mount a r/o partition as the left most lowerdir instead of using it as upperdir. And a r/o upperdir may cause an error like
overlayfs: failed to create directory ./workdir/work
during mount.
This patch check the *s_flags* of upper fs and return an error if it is a r/o partition. The checking of *upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags* can be removed now.
This patch also remove
/* FIXME: workdir is not needed for a R/O mount */from
ovl_fill_super()because:1) for upper fs r/o case
Setting a r/o partition as upper is prevented, no need to care about workdir in this case.2) for "mount overlay -o ro" with a r/w upper fs case Users could remount overlayfs to r/w in this case, so workdir should not be omitted.
Signed-off-by hujianyang <[email protected]>---
fs/overlayfs/super.c| 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)fs/overlayfs/super.c +1
-2@@ -529,8 +529,7 @@ static int ovl_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data) {struct ovl_fs *ufs = sb->s_fs_info; -if (!(*flags &MS_RDONLY ) && - (!ufs->upper_mnt || (ufs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))) +if (!(*flags &MS_RDONLY ) && (!ufs->upper_mnt))return -EROFS ;return 0;fs/overlayfs/super.c +9
-0@@ -619,6 +618,15 @@ static int ovl_parse_opt(char *opt, struct ovl_config *config)return -EINVAL ; } } + +/* Workdir is useless in non-upper mount */ +if (!config->upperdir && config->workdir) { + pr_info("overlayfs: option \"workdir=%s\" is useless in a non-upper mount, ignore\n", + config->workdir); +kfree (config->workdir); + config->workdir =NULL ; + } +return 0 ;}
fs/overlayfs/super.c +0
-1@@ -838,7 +846,6 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) sb->s_stack_depth = 0;if (ufs->config.upperdir) { -/* FIXME: workdir is not needed for a R/O mount */ if (!ufs->config.workdir) {pr_err ("overlayfs: missing 'workdir'\n" );goto out_free_config;fs/overlayfs/super.c +7
-0@@ -848,6 +855,13 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) if (err) goto out_free_config; +/* Upper fs should not be r/o */ +if (upperpath.mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY ) { +pr_err ("overlayfs: upper fs is r/o, try multi-lower layers mount\n"); + err = -EINVAL ; + goto out_put_upperpath; + } + err =ovl_mount_dir (ufs->config.workdir, &workpath);if (err) goto out_put_upperpath;fs/overlayfs/super.c +2
-2@@ -939,8 +953,8 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,void *data, int silent) ufs->numlower++; } -/* If the upper fs is r/o or nonexistent, we mark overlayfs r/o too */ -if (!ufs->upper_mnt || (ufs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags &MS_RDONLY )) +/* If the upper fs is nonexistent, we mark overlayfs r/o too */ +if (!ufs->upper_mnt) sb->s_flags |=MS_RDONLY ;Quoted 1 line
sb->s_d_op = &ovl_dentry_operations;It works fine to me.
And I think it is better than my implementation : )Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: upper fs should not be R/O
Hi Alex,
I think your question is about why workdir was introduced. I'd like to share my thought with you. I should say Miklos is the best candidate to explain it, because he is the author of this filesystem.
Quoted 4 lines · A. Wan
Just one question. If each r/o layer does not require a workdir, why would a stack of r/o layers require one - and hence the requirement that the top layer must be r/w?
As far as I know, "workdir" is not belong to any r/o or r/w layer in overlayfs. Actually it belong to a overlayfs mount itself. "Workdir" is not mandatory after recently multi-lower layer feature. It is used only in r/w case, and only valuable in r/w case. My patch wants to make sure the specified "workdir" in option line is significative.
If you just mount a stack of r/o layers, you don't need any "workdir", but the mounted overlayfs partition will be marked as r/o. If you want a r/w mount, you must specify a upperdir, the r/w layer on the top and specify a workdir in the same mount with upperdir.
Overlayfs is a union filesystem. It gives ability to combine directories in different mounts together. For r/w mount case, overlayfs allow users change any file in its mount. But the implement of overlayfs not directly write to each lower fs. All the write is reflected on the upper layer, the top r/w layer.
See this link about unionfs:
http://lwn.net/Articles/324291/
"Workdir" works as the temp directory of a overlayfs mount. The file changing is first done in it and then use rename() move to upper directory. That's why "workdir" must in the same mount with upperdir.
For example,
if users delete a file which belong to a lower a/o layer in overlayfs partition, the deletion is not perform on lower fs. Instead, a whiteout file is created in "workdir" and then move to upperdir.
Other operations, like "copy_up", "rename" also use "workdir" as the temporary directory. You can read this code in fs/overlayfs yourself.
I think "workdir" is used to keep the consistency of overlayfs and avoid corrupt data damaging the filesystem. I'd like Miklos could explain more for us.
Quoted 1 line
Does it has to do with why workdir was introduced in the first place?
It's not the business of my patch, "workdir" is not introduced by it. But after rescanning the document in kernel, I think more explanation about "workdir" is worth to be done.
Quoted 3 lines
Sorry but I couldn't find information about why workdir was introduced. I suppose it was to support some functions that older versions can't.
No, "workdir" is introduced since overlayfs first merged into mainline and is still needed in r/w mount. But I wonder if there are other implements instead. Oh, Miklos may be unhappy with my unorthodox notion.
I'm sorry to say I'm not good at English expression, but I'm happy to clarify any points that are still unclear.
Thanks,
Hu
Quoted 12 lines
Alex
Quoted 9 lines · Seunghun Lee
Quoted 7 lines · hujianyang
After importing multi-lower layer support, users could mount a r/o partition as the left most lowerdir instead of using it as upperdir. And a r/o upperdir may cause an error like
overlayfs: failed to create directory ./workdir/work
during mount.
Miklos Szeredi
maintainerRe: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: upper fs should not be R/O
In reply to hujianyangThe three patches are queued at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git overlayfs-next
Thanks,
Miklos