Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] fs: allow statmount to fetch the fs_subtype and sb_source

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 2024-11-14 at 12:29 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 08:45:06AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-11-13 at 12:27 +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:39:21PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:09:54 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > Meta has some internal logging that scrapes /proc/self/mountinfo today.
> > > > > I'd like to convert it to use listmount()/statmount(), so we can do a
> > > > > better job of monitoring with containers. We're missing some fields
> > > > > though. This patchset adds them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Applied to the vfs.misc branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree.
> > > > Patches in the vfs.misc branch should appear in linux-next soon.
> > > 
> > > Jeff, thank you for this!
> > > 
> > > I have already implemented support for statmount() and listmount() in
> > > libmount (PR: https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux/pull/3092). The
> > > only remaining issue was the mount source and incomplete file system
> > > type.
> > > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I think we might be missing something else:
> > 
> > The mountinfo (and "mounts") file generator calls show_sb_opts() which
> > generates some strings from the sb->s_flags field and then calls
> > security_sb_show_options(). statmount() will give you the s_flags field
> > (or an equivalent), but it doesn't give you the security options
> > string. So, those aren't currently visible from statmount().
> > 
> > How should we expose those? Should we create a new statmount string
> > field and populate it, or is it better to just tack them onto the end
> > of the statmount.mnt_opts string?
> 
> I'm leaning towards using a separate field because mnt_opts/opts_array
> is about filesystem specific mount options whereas the security mount
> options are somewhat generic. So it's easy to tell them apart.

Ordinarily, I might agree, but we're now growing a new mount option
field that has them separated by NULs. Will we need two extra fields
for this? One comma-separated, and one NUL separated?

/proc/#/mountinfo and mounts prepend these to the output of 
->show_options, so the simple solution would be to just prepend those
there instead of adding a new field. FWIW, only SELinux has any extra
mount options to show here.

Tough call -- anyone else have opinions?
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>