From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: Kernel patch to better support bind-mounts Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:19:37 -0500 Message-ID: <47CEABF9.8090108@redhat.com> References: <1199788697.26268.24.camel@srss> <1204634872.11825.79.camel@srss> <47CD4DC9.2030703@redhat.com> <1204685216.3081.7.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1204685216.3081.7.camel@raven.themaw.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Ian Kent Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org Ian Kent wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 08:25 -0500, Peter Staubach wrote: > >> Lukas Kolbe wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian! >>> >>> Ping? :) >>> >>> We use this patch now for several servers and clients (debian etch with >>> 2.6.18, ubuntu feisty with 2.6.20 and some test systems with 2.6.23), >>> and have seen no regression so far, only working automounts :) >>> I'd love to see this change upstream, so that I don't have to worry >>> about constantly patching my own kernel anymore :) >>> >> Why does adding mount on access(2) make things work better? What works >> better? >> > > Lucas has recursive maps. > For these mounts to work, we need to ensure that there aren't dependent > mounts in the mount point path itself before proceeding. We've used the > access system call, made just prior to performing the mount, to make > this happen. In this case, however, the lookup flags in the kernel where > not triggering the mount. And this does not trigger mounts by other applications, such as ls, too? Thanx... ps