Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] fuse: basic support for idmapped mounts

[Seth Forshee]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 06:50:57PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > - We have a small offlist discussion with Christian about adding fs_type->allow_idmap
> > hook. Christian pointed out that it would be nice to have a superblock flag instead like
> > SB_I_NOIDMAP and we can set this flag during mount time if we see that the filesystem does not
> > support idmappings. But, unfortunately, I didn't succeed here because the kernel will
> > know if the filesystem supports idmapping or not after FUSE_INIT request, but FUSE_INIT request
> > is being sent at the end of the mounting process, so the mount and superblock will exist and
> > visible by the userspace in that time. It seems like setting SB_I_NOIDMAP flag, in this
> > case, is too late as a user may do the trick by creating an idmapped mount while it wasn't
> > restricted by SB_I_NOIDMAP. Alternatively, we can introduce a "positive" version SB_I_ALLOWIDMAP
> 
> I see.
> 
> > and a "weak" version of FS_ALLOW_IDMAP like FS_MAY_ALLOW_IDMAP. So if FS_MAY_ALLOW_IDMAP is set,
> > then SB_I_ALLOWIDMAP has to be set on the superblock to allow the creation of an idmapped mount.
> > But that's a matter of our discussion.
> 
> I dislike making adding a struct super_block method. Because it means that we
> call into the filesystem from generic mount code and specifically with the
> namespace semaphore held. If there's ever any network filesystem that e.g.,
> calls to a hung server it will lockup the whole system. So I'm opposed to
> calling into the filesystem here at all. It's also ugly because this is really
> a vfs level change. The only involvement should be whether the filesystem type
> can actually support this ideally.
> 
> I think we should handle this within FUSE. So we allow the creation of idmapped
> mounts just based on FS_ALLOW_IDMAP. And if the server doesn't support the
> FUSE_OWNER_UID_GID_EXT then we simply refuse all creation requests originating
> from an idmapped mount. Either we return EOPNOSUPP or we return EOVERFLOW to
> indicate that we can't represent the owner correctly because the server is
> missing the required extension.

Could fuse just set SB_I_NOIDMAP initially then clear it if the init
reply indicates idmap support? This is like the "weak" FS_ALLOW_IDMAP
option without requiring another file_system_type flag.