From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [patch] add dentry revalidate to follow mount. Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:43:45 -0600 Message-ID: <20090609034345.GJ9002@webber.adilger.int> References: <4A2D15AF.8090000@sun.com> <20090608141317.GJ8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4A2D735C.8090703@sun.com> <20090608201745.GO8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: pravin shelar , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from sca-es-mail-2.Sun.COM ([192.18.43.133]:48735 "EHLO sca-es-mail-2.sun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752526AbZFIDn5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 23:43:57 -0400 Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n593hvZq026127 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Content-disposition: inline Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KKY00B00CSYQE00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:43:57 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <20090608201745.GO8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jun 08, 2009 21:17 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 01:53:56AM +0530, pravin shelar wrote: > > Al Viro wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 07:14:15PM +0530, pravin shelar wrote: > >>> Hi > >>> i have seen error in lustre while setting permission on fs root > >>> from a client. problem is permission are not getting propagated to > >>> other clients. > >>> > >>> this is because of do_lookup() call path which does not revalidate > >>> fs root dentry in follow_mount() > >>> > >>> attached patch adds revalidation call in follow_mount. > >> > >> ... and makes umount() of such thing impossible. NAK. That's not a solution. > > > > i am not sure how this patch could cause problem for umount. i have > > tested patch with nfs and it worked fine. > > can u elaborate what is problem? > > Think what happens if revalidate fails and keeps failing. Would do > wonders to pathname resolution in umount(2)... Would having a limit on the number of revalidations be a suitable compromise? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.