From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
rui.xiang@huawei.com,
autofs mailing list <autofs@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs4 - fix device ioctl mount lookup
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:26:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130904022617.GG13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwF+dqSMyGE+3LamM+qSDymieyReYB+RPb8fHTTmntgqw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 07:18:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > That aside, I'm really not happy with this kind of games; this stuff clearly
> > belongs in fs/namei.c where we can simply see the last component. Doing that
> > on the level of "let's scan the pathname for slashes, etc." is just plain
> > wrong. Let's step back for a minute here; what are you trying to do?
> > You have a pathname that should resolve to a mountpoint, without triggering
> > automount (or crossing into the mountpoint, for that matter) and you want
> > struct path for the bottom of that mount stack? Or is it something
> > completely different?
>
> Can we add a LOOKUP_NOAUTOMNT bit or something (not exposed to user
> space, only used for this particular kern_path() call). Then, if/when
> automount gets called recursively (through autofs4_lookup? Or is it
> just the autofs4_d_automount() interface?) it can just decide to not
> follow that last path.
>
> Hmm? I don't think we pass in the lookup-flags to d_automount, but
> that could be changed. Yes?
No need, really - what we ought to do, AFAICS, is what umount(2) needs.
I've applied slightly modified variant of Jeff's "vfs: allow umount to handle
mountpoints without revalidating them" (modified by just leaving the
struct path filled with mountpoint and leaving the equivalent of follow_mount()
to caller) to the local queue and I'm pretty sure that it's what we want
here as well.
I'll push for-next tonight and send a pull request your way tomorrow, if you
are OK with that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-04 2:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-04 0:54 [PATCH 1/3] autofs4 - fix device ioctl mount lookup Ian Kent
2013-09-04 0:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] autofs: fix the return value of autofs4_fill_super Ian Kent
2013-09-04 0:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] autofs: use IS_ROOT to replace root dentry checks Ian Kent
2013-09-04 1:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] autofs4 - fix device ioctl mount lookup Al Viro
2013-09-04 2:00 ` Al Viro
2013-09-04 2:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-04 2:26 ` Al Viro [this message]
2013-09-04 2:42 ` Al Viro
2013-09-04 3:53 ` Ian Kent
2013-09-04 4:07 ` Ian Kent
2013-09-04 10:35 ` Jeff Layton
2013-09-06 8:38 ` Ian Kent
2013-09-06 8:54 ` Ian Kent
2013-09-06 10:11 ` Jeff Layton
2013-09-04 2:46 ` Ian Kent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130904022617.GG13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=autofs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=rui.xiang@huawei.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.