[Devel] Re: How to query mount propagation state?

[Ram Pai]

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 14:16 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > This patch introduces a new proc interface that exposes all the
> propagation 
> > trees within the namespace.
> > 
> > It walks through each off the mounts in the namespace, and prints
> the following information.
> > 
> > mount-id: a unique mount identifier
> > dev-id : the unique device used to identify the device containing
> the filesystem
> > path-from-root: mount point of the mount from /
> > path-from-root-of-its-sb: path from its own root dentry.
> > propagation-flag: SHARED, SLAVE, UNBINDABLE, PRIVATE
> > peer-mount-id: the mount-id of its peer mount (if this mount is
> shared)
> > master-mount-id: the mount-id of its master mount (if this mount is
> slave)
> > 
> > Using the above information one could easily write a script that can
> > draw all the propagation trees in the namespace.
> > 
> > 
> > Example:
> > Here is a sample output of cat /proc/$$/mounts_propagation
> > 
> > 0xa917800 0x1 / / PRIVATE
> > 0xa917200 0x6200 / / PRIVATE
> > 0xa917180 0x3 /proc / PRIVATE
> > 0xa917f80 0xa /dev/pts / PRIVATE
> > 0xa917100 0x6210 /mnt / SHARED peer:0xa917100
> > 0xa917f00 0x6210 /tmp /1 SLAVE master:0xa917100
> > 0xa917900 0x6220 /mnt/2 / SHARED peer:0xa917900
> > 
> > line 5 indicates that the mount with id 0xa917100 is mounted at /mnt
> is shared
> > and it is the only mount in its peer group.
> > 
> > line 6 indicates that the mount with id 0xa917f00 is mounted
> at /tmp, its 
> > root is the dentry 1 present under its root directory. This mount is
> a
> > slave mount and its master is the mount with id 0xa917100.
> > 
> > line 7 indicates that the mount with id 0xa917900 is mounted
> at /mnt/2, its 
> > root is the dentry / of its filesystem. This mount is a
> > shared and it is the only mount in its peer group.
> > 
> > one could write a script which runs through these lines and draws 4
> > individual satellite mounts and two propagation trees, the first
> propagation
> > tree has a shared mount and a slave mount.  and the second
> propagation tree has
> > just one shared mount.
> > 
> >       
> > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram at us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/namespace.c |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  fs/pnode.c     |    6 ------
> >  fs/pnode.h     |    6 ++++++
> >  fs/proc/base.c |   22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  4 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6.17.10/fs/namespace.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.17.10.orig/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.17.10/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -410,6 +410,41 @@ static int show_vfsmnt_new(struct seq_fi
> >       return show_options(m, v);
> >  }
> > 
> > +static int show_vfsmnt_propagation(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > +{
> > +     struct vfsmount *mnt = v;
> > +     seq_printf(m, "0x%x", (int)mnt);
> > +     seq_putc(m, ' ');
> > +     seq_printf(m, "0x%x", new_encode_dev(mnt->mnt_sb->s_dev));
> > +     seq_putc(m, ' ');
> > +     seq_path(m, mnt, mnt->mnt_root, " \t\n\\");
> > +     seq_putc(m, ' ');
> > +     seq_dentry(m, mnt->mnt_root, " \t\n\\");
> > +     seq_putc(m, ' ');
> > +
> > +     if (IS_MNT_SHARED(mnt)) {
> > +             seq_printf(m, "%s ", "SHARED");
> > +             if (IS_MNT_SLAVE(mnt)) {
> > +                     seq_printf(m, "%s ", "SLAVE");
> > +             }
> > +     } else if (IS_MNT_SLAVE(mnt)) {
> > +             seq_printf(m, "%s ", "SLAVE");
> > +     } else if (IS_MNT_UNBINDABLE(mnt)) {
> > +             seq_printf(m, "%s ", "UNBINDABLE");
> > +     } else {
> > +             seq_printf(m, "%s ", "PRIVATE");
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     if (IS_MNT_SHARED(mnt)) {
> > +             seq_printf(m, "peer:0x%x ", (int)next_peer(mnt));
> 
> Ok, so if the sequence of events was
> 
>         mount --make-shared /mnt
>         (some user logs in and gets a cloned namespace, so his /mnt
>         becomes the next peer of /mnt)
>         mount --bind /mnt /tmp
>         (some other user logs in and gets cloned namespace...)
> 
> or some such sequence of events, we could lose all information
> about /mnt and /tmp being peers, right?  Should a new
> next_peer_in_same_namespace(mnt) be used rather than next_peer()?

you are right. it should print next_peer(mnt) only if CAP_SYS_ADMIN,
else print next_peer_in_same_namespace(mnt).

> 
> Somewhat similarly,
> 
> > +     }
> > +     if (IS_MNT_SLAVE(mnt)) {
> > +             seq_printf(m, "master:0x%x ", (int)mnt->mnt_master);
> 
> Should we for privacy reasons not print out the address
> mnt->mnt_master
> is in a different namespace (perhaps if !CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?

right. it should print mnt->mnt_master if (CAP_SYS_ADMIN), otherwise
print master_in_same_namespace(mnt).

RP

> 
> Otherwise I like this.
> 
> thanks,
> -serge 

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers