On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:24:41PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > Hello, > > This is basically the resend of > "[PATCH v2 00/20] btrfs-progs: Rework of "subvolume list/show" and relax the > root privileges of them" [1] > which I submitted in June. The aim of this series is to allow non-privileged > user > to use basic subvolume functionality (create/list/snapshot/delete; this > allows "list") > > They were once in devel branch with some whitespace/comment modification by > david. > I rebased them to current devel branch. > > github: https://github.com/t-msn/btrfs-progs/tree/rework-sub-list > > Basic logic/code is the same as before. Some differences are: > - Use latest libbtrfsutil from Omar [2] (thus drop first part of patches). > As a result, "sub list" cannot accept an ordinary directry to be > specified (which is allowed in previous version) > - Drop patches which add new options to "sub list" > - Use 'nobody' as non-privileged test user just like libbtrfsutil test > - Update comments > > Importantly, in order to make output consistent for both root and > non-privileged > user, this changes the behavior of "subvolume list": > - (default) Only list in subvolume under the specified path. > Path needs to be a subvolume. > - (-a) filter is dropped. i.e. its output is the same as the > default behavior of "sub list" in progs <= 4.19 > > Therefore, existent scripts may need to update to add -a option > (I believe nobody uses current -a option). > If anyone thinks this is not good, please let me know.
I think there are a few options in the case that the path isn't a subvolume: 1. List all subvolumes in the filesystem with randomly mangled paths, which is what we currently do. 2. Error out, which is what this version of the series does. 3. List all subvolumes under the containing subvolume, which is what the previous version does. 4. List all subvolumes under the containing subvolume that are underneath the given path. Option 1 won't work well for unprivileged users. Option 2 (this series) is definitely going to break people's workflows/scripts. Option 3 is unintuitive. In my opinion, option 4 is the nicest, but it may also break scripts that expect all subvolumes to be printed. There's also an option 5, which is to keep the behavior the same for root (like what my previous patch [1] did) and implement option 4 for unprivileged users. I think 4 and 5 are the two main choices: do we want to preserve backwards compatibility as carefully as possible (at the cost of consistency), or do we want to risk it and improve the interface? 1: https://github.com/osandov/btrfs-progs/commit/fb61c21aeb998b12c1d02532639083d7f40c41e0
