From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] mount_is_safe(): add comment Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:10:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1182784245.26162.79.camel@localhost> References: <20070622200303.82D9CC3A@kernel> <20070622200322.F1AC0AC0@kernel> <20070623074718.GL27954@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Hansen , akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:46685 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752897AbXFYPKt (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:10:49 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5PFAmSY009695 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:10:48 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l5PFAmQ0505432 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:10:48 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l5PFAlOn007475 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:10:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070623074718.GL27954@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 08:47 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:03:22PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > This area of code is currently #ifdef'd out, so add a comment > > for the time when it is actually used. > > Ok. Does this clash with the user mount patches? Even if it does > I think we want this patch first in the series and fix the user mounts > up ontop of it. It will clash with those, but they completely drops the call to vfs_permission() in here. As I think about this again, we really don't care about r/o bind mounts here, _only_ the vfs permissions. If it is a r/o bind mount we want to be able to mount something writable on top of it because we're never actually writing to the mount *itself*. I think this patch can just go away now. -- Dave