From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: sys_umount() returns EBUSY when doing: sh -c "mount /dev/sdc1
 /mnt;	umount /mnt"
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:53:31 +0800
Message-ID: <1268722411.2269.34.camel@localhost>
References: <38b2ab8a1003130056u4b025839i556a797ccad894de@mail.gmail.com>
	 <38b2ab8a1003131230q469158b3qd7dcb9f880ea68e1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <AEFA39B9-7F8A-4F55-8268-991F1DF098BB@sun.com>
	 <20100315163454.GV30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>,
	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:37680 "EHLO
	out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757619Ab0CPGxh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:53:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20100315163454.GV30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 16:34 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:04:46AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On 2010-03-13, at 13:30, Francis Moreau wrote:
> > >I've some shell scripts which try to find out the filesystem hosted by
> > >a block device.
> > >
> > >They basically do this:
> > >
> > >  mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt
> > >  fs=$(stat -f -c %T $mount_point)
> > >  umount /mnt
> > 
> > Mounting an in-use filesystem is a bad idea.
> 
> Huh?  mount() will happily create another vfsmount refering to the same
> superblock in that case.  It *is* OK to mount the same block device twice;
> any fs that uses get_sb_bdev() will DTRT.
> 
> It should be safe.  The lack of error checking after mount, OTOH, is not.

I started seeing similar behavior in autofs after the pnode patches went
in. I was never able to decide if I was doing something wrong or if
there had been some latency in reducing reference counts introduced.
Also, I couldn't see anything in the kernel code that that even looked
like it would cause this so I didn't see any use in reporting it.
Instead I began using a retry loop with a short delay when umounting
mounts.

Ian