Explicitly prevent mounting over an existing mount #348
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
force-pushed
the
forbid-double-mount
branch
from
6f9affc
to
e5f7b85
Compare
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
passaro
reviewed
Jun 30, 2023
| @@ -251,14 +251,6 @@ impl CliArgs { | |||
| fn main() -> anyhow::Result<()> { | |||
| let args = CliArgs::parse(); | |||
|
|
|||
| // validate mount point | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we okay moving this validation to the background process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should be -- it was the only validation we were doing in the foreground process previously, and we shouldn't be doing any work at all before the fork.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense, but we need to update the tests.
jamesbornholt
force-pushed
the
forbid-double-mount
branch
from
192edaa
to
db4ac2e
Compare
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
force-pushed
the
forbid-double-mount
branch
from
db4ac2e
to
a5aed49
Compare
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
force-pushed
the
forbid-double-mount
branch
from
a5aed49
to
ee95caf
Compare
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
jamesbornholt
had a problem deploying
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
passaro
reviewed
Jun 30, 2023
| @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ time = { version = "0.3.17", features = ["macros", "formatting"] } | |||
| const_format = "0.2.30" | |||
| home = "0.5.4" | |||
| serde_json = "1.0.95" | |||
| procfs = { version = "0.15.1", default-features = false } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't this platform-specific?
It's valid to mount multiple file systems to the same directory, but doing so requires the first one to be mounted read-write, which is why this wasn't a problem for us until awslabs#327. It seems libfuse2's version of fusermount explicitly checked this(?), but libfuse3 no longer rejects it. In principle this might be something we'd want to allow, but I think the less surprising/error-prone customer experience is to refuse to do it, so let's explicitly forbid it. Signed-off-by: James Bornholt <[email protected]>
jamesbornholt
force-pushed
the
forbid-double-mount
branch
from
a6c2b49
to
486c145
Compare
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
jamesbornholt
temporarily deployed
to
PR integration tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
passaro
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2023
sauraank
pushed a commit
to sauraank/mountpoint-s3
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2023
It's valid to mount multiple file systems to the same directory, but doing so requires the first one to be mounted read-write, which is why this wasn't a problem for us until awslabs#327. It seems libfuse2's version of fusermount explicitly checked this(?), but libfuse3 no longer rejects it. In principle this might be something we'd want to allow, but I think the less surprising/error-prone customer experience is to refuse to do it, so let's explicitly forbid it. Signed-off-by: James Bornholt <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of change
It's valid to mount multiple file systems to the same directory, but
doing so requires the first one to be mounted read-write, which is why
this wasn't a problem for us until #327. It seems libfuse2's version of
fusermount explicitly checked this(?), but libfuse3 no longer rejects
it.
In principle this might be something we'd want to allow, but I think the
less surprising/error-prone customer experience is to refuse to do it,
so let's explicitly forbid it.
Does this change impact existing behavior?
No.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license and I agree to the terms of the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO).