From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] autofs - make mountpoint checks namespace aware Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:52:12 +0800 Message-ID: <1474941132.3390.6.camel@themaw.net> References: <20160914061434.24714.490.stgit@pluto.themaw.net> <20160914061445.24714.68331.stgit@pluto.themaw.net> <20160917201000.omswgttgyzcu7jt6@mguzik> <1474248973.3204.14.camel@themaw.net> <87oa3iikgf.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474411462.22440.2.camel@themaw.net> <1474412413.22440.7.camel@themaw.net> <1474507987.12887.5.camel@themaw.net> <87k2e4c541.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474592141.3345.20.camel@themaw.net> <877fa39z1q.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474604774.3083.1.camel@themaw.net> <87oa3e8m2v.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474675869.3078.3.camel@themaw.net> <878tue8x4s.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=themaw.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=7d9X7X7pncCeTqZDMiKjvaoqh9c=; b=FendYQ 1dNwhD4Zu4AjjH7T3+hoB1NZzsbeXlyxASpzDM4GYDJoVuYlrsquQVarJ2Iu3S0w 0lYRFUGxHFb19wx+tJ0QzSyiONCdN3YYWxKOOs+6X86TfMoRCu8kyRXyORK3foxF NsZVsqdwM8//4onKU6HRGq7WDDZspbMjJ1T7s= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=7d9X7X7pncCeTqZ DMiKjvaoqh9c=; b=tLhdpTWn6/TIpoImMunH/vRTYFMyPwN5ufFyFUFuAse+sbD E/DsZ1eSH4ENFVsA9MoT5dfHqKUKAyyygBLP/FJC3cbzB+xi/nSK33CnpnA2k6L1 rr5RTyA4IylvHwGOBSxW0VP9okvgdf8oarTRY+q+LeLhKym5pyrskPANKi38= In-Reply-To: <878tue8x4s.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Sender: autofs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Mateusz Guzik , NeilBrown , Andrew Morton , autofs mailing list , Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , Omar Sandoval On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 11:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ian Kent writes: > > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Ian Kent writes: > > > > > > 2> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > Ian Kent writes: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > > > Ian Kent writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric, Mateusz, I appreciate your spending time on this and > > > > > > > > particularly > > > > > > > > pointing > > > > > > > > out my embarrassingly stupid is_local_mountpoint() usage > > > > > > > > mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please accept my apology for the inconvenience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If all goes well (in testing) I'll have follow up patches to > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > fairly > > > > > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related question. Do you happen to know how many mounts per mount > > > > > > > namespace tend to be used? It looks like it is going to be wise > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > a configurable limit on that number. And I would like the default > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > something high enough most people don't care. I believe autofs is > > > > > > > likely where people tend to use the most mounts. > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, I did want to try and avoid changing the parameters to > > > > ->d_mamange() but passing a struct path pointer might be better in the > > > > long > > > > run > > > > anyway. > > > > > > Given that there is exactly one implementation of d_manage in the tree I > > > don't imagine it will be disruptive to change that. > > > > Yes, but it could be used by external modules. > > > > And there's also have_submounts(). > > Good point about have_submounts. > > > I can update that using the existing d_walk() infrastructure or take it > > (mostly) > > into the autofs module and get rid of have_submounts(). > > > > I'll go with the former to start with and see what people think. > > That will be interesting to so. It is not clear to me that if d_walk > needs to be updated, and if d_walk doesn't need to be updated I would > be surprised to see it take into autofs. But I am happy to look at the > end result and see what you come up with. I didn't mean d_walk() itself, just the have_submounts() function that's used only by autofs these days. That's all I'll be changing. To take this functionality into the autofs module shouldn't be a big deal as it amounts to a directory traversal with a check at each node. But I vaguely remember talk of wanting to get rid of have_submounts() and autofs being the only remaining user. So I mentioned it to try and elicit a comment, ;) > > Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:36679 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933035AbcI0BwX (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1474941132.3390.6.camel@themaw.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] autofs - make mountpoint checks namespace aware From: Ian Kent To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Mateusz Guzik , NeilBrown , Andrew Morton , autofs mailing list , Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , Omar Sandoval Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:52:12 +0800 In-Reply-To: <878tue8x4s.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> References: <20160914061434.24714.490.stgit@pluto.themaw.net> <20160914061445.24714.68331.stgit@pluto.themaw.net> <20160917201000.omswgttgyzcu7jt6@mguzik> <1474248973.3204.14.camel@themaw.net> <87oa3iikgf.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474411462.22440.2.camel@themaw.net> <1474412413.22440.7.camel@themaw.net> <1474507987.12887.5.camel@themaw.net> <87k2e4c541.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474592141.3345.20.camel@themaw.net> <877fa39z1q.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474604774.3083.1.camel@themaw.net> <87oa3e8m2v.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474675869.3078.3.camel@themaw.net> <878tue8x4s.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 11:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ian Kent writes: > > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Ian Kent writes: > > > > > > 2> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > Ian Kent writes: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > > > Ian Kent writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric, Mateusz, I appreciate your spending time on this and > > > > > > > > particularly > > > > > > > > pointing > > > > > > > > out my embarrassingly stupid is_local_mountpoint() usage > > > > > > > > mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please accept my apology for the inconvenience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If all goes well (in testing) I'll have follow up patches to > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > fairly > > > > > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related question. Do you happen to know how many mounts per mount > > > > > > > namespace tend to be used? It looks like it is going to be wise > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > a configurable limit on that number. And I would like the default > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > something high enough most people don't care. I believe autofs is > > > > > > > likely where people tend to use the most mounts. > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, I did want to try and avoid changing the parameters to > > > > ->d_mamange() but passing a struct path pointer might be better in the > > > > long > > > > run > > > > anyway. > > > > > > Given that there is exactly one implementation of d_manage in the tree I > > > don't imagine it will be disruptive to change that. > > > > Yes, but it could be used by external modules. > > > > And there's also have_submounts(). > > Good point about have_submounts. > > > I can update that using the existing d_walk() infrastructure or take it > > (mostly) > > into the autofs module and get rid of have_submounts(). > > > > I'll go with the former to start with and see what people think. > > That will be interesting to so. It is not clear to me that if d_walk > needs to be updated, and if d_walk doesn't need to be updated I would > be surprised to see it take into autofs. But I am happy to look at the > end result and see what you come up with. I didn't mean d_walk() itself, just the have_submounts() function that's used only by autofs these days. That's all I'll be changing. To take this functionality into the autofs module shouldn't be a big deal as it amounts to a directory traversal with a check at each node. But I vaguely remember talk of wanting to get rid of have_submounts() and autofs being the only remaining user. So I mentioned it to try and elicit a comment, ;) > > Eric