From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET v3] non-recursive pathname resolution & RCU symlinks Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 11:32:24 -0500 Message-ID: <87zj57m86f.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> References: <20150505052205.GS889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150511180650.GA4147@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150513222533.GA24192@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150514033040.GF7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Christoph Hellwig , Neil Brown To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:56380 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932997AbbENQhR (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2015 12:37:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150514033040.GF7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Thu, 14 May 2015 04:30:40 +0100") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Al Viro writes: > In particular, automounts will require > discussing what exactly in the process' state is used for those - both > with autofs/NFS/AFS/CIFS folks and with Eric (what netns should be used > when we are crossing an NFSv4 referral point? Should it come from the > NFS mount we'd found the referral on, or from the process that has run > across it? There'd been a series from Ian around the interplay of > autofs with namespaces, and IIRC it stepped into similar-sounding areas; > it'll need to be looked into, etc.) Almost certainly it should be the netns of NFS mount the referral is on. Looking at processes causes all kinds of caching problems, and is only really appropriate when we are looking at something deliberate like magic symlinks (i.e. /proc/self). Automounts are the one case where I can image capturing the current netns during mounting of the filesystem could be an issue. Eric