[PATCH 00/24] vfs: require filesystems to explicitly opt-in to lease support

[Amir Goldstein]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 2:41 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2026-01-14 at 05:06 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:34:04AM +0100, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 7:28 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 12:06:42PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > Fair point, but it's not that hard to conceive of a situation where
> > > > > someone inadvertantly exports cgroupfs or some similar filesystem:
> > > >
> > > > Sure.  But how is this worse than accidentally exporting private data
> > > > or any other misconfiguration?
> > > >
> > >
> > > My POV is that it is less about security (as your question implies), and
> > > more about correctness.
> >
> > I was just replying to Jeff.
> >
> > > The special thing about NFS export, as opposed to, say, ksmbd, is
> > > open by file handle, IOW, the export_operations.
> > >
> > > I perceive this as a very strange and undesired situation when NFS
> > > file handles do not behave as persistent file handles.
> >
> > That is not just very strange, but actually broken (discounting the
> > obscure volatile file handles features not implemented in Linux NFS
> > and NFSD).  And the export ops always worked under the assumption
> > that these file handles are indeed persistent.  If they're not we
> > do have a problem.
> >
> > >
> > > cgroupfs, pidfs, nsfs, all gained open_by_handle_at() capability for
> > > a known reason, which was NOT NFS export.
> > >
> > > If the author of open_by_handle_at() support (i.e. brauner) does not
> > > wish to imply that those fs should be exported to NFS, why object?
> >
> > Because "want to export" is a stupid category.
> >
> > OTOH "NFS exporting doesn't actually properly work because someone
> > overloaded export_ops with different semantics" is a valid category.
> >
>
> cgroupfs definitely doesn't behave as expected when exported via NFS.
> The files aren't readable, at least. I'd also be surprised if the
> filehandles were stable across a reboot, which is sort of necessary for
> proper operation. I didn't test writing, but who knows whether that
> might also just not work, crash the box, or do something else entirely.
>
> I imagine this is the case for all sorts of filesystems like /proc,
> /sys, etc. Those aren't exportable today (to my knowledge), but we're
> growing export_operations across a wide range of fs's these days.
>
> I'd prefer that we require someone to take the deliberate step to say
> "yes, allow nfsd to access this type of filesystem".
>
> > > We could have the opt-in/out of NFS export fixes per EXPORT_OP_
> > > flags and we could even think of allowing admin to make this decision
> > > per vfsmount (e.g. for cgroupfs).
> > >
> > > In any case, I fail to see how objecting to the possibility of NFS export
> > > opt-out serves anyone.
> >
> > You're still think of it the wrong way.  If we do have file systems
> > that break the original exportfs semantics we need to fix that, and
> > something like a "stable handles" flag will work well for that.  But
> > a totally arbitrary "is exportable" flag is total nonsense.
>

Very well then.
How about EXPORT_OP_PERSISTENT_HANDLES?

This terminology is from the NFS protocol spec and it is also used
to describe the same trait in SMB protocol.

> The problem there is that we very much do want to keep tmpfs
> exportable, but it doesn't have stable handles (per-se).

Thinking out loud -
It would be misguided to declare tmpfs as
EXPORT_OP_PERSISTENT_HANDLES
and regressing exports of tmpfs will surely not go unnoticed.

How about adding an exportfs option "persistent_handles",
use it as default IFF neither options fsid=, uuid= are used,
so that at least when exporting tmpfs, exportfs -v will show
"no_persistent_handles" explicitly?

Thanks,
Amir.