From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH review 11/11] mnt: Honor MNT_LOCKED when detaching mounts
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 03:02:29 +0000
Message-ID: <20150108030229.GD22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <87mw5xq7lt.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <1420490787-14387-11-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <20150107184334.GZ22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <87h9w2gzht.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20150107205239.GB22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <87iogi8dka.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20150108002227.GC22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:50411 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752151AbbAHDCf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Jan 2015 22:02:35 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150108002227.GC22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:22:27AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Not sure if I like the use of mnt_child between mntput_no_expire() and
> cleanup_mnt() - it's probably safe, but the fewer lists we modify outside of
> mount hash lock, the better; hell knows, I'll need to stare at that code
> a bit more.  FWIW, AFAICS the refcount rules with your variant are
> 	* external references countribute
> 	* mnt_parent contributes unless it points to ourselves *or* mnt_ns is
> NULL
> 	* reachable from mount hash => add 1
> 	* in addition to the wart around namespace_unlock(), we have a similar
> wart between mntput_no_expire() and cleanup_mnt(), only there we thread the
> suckers on mnt_child instead of mnt_list and use slightly different logics to
> prevent shutdown of parent fs before the dput(mountpoint).

BTW, why do you use detach_mnt() in __detach_mounts()?  Unless I'm missing
something really subtle, __detach_mnt() is the right thing there...

And while we are at it, all other callers of detach_mnt() are followed by
attach_mnt() within the same namespace *and* all attach_mnt() follow
detach_mnt().  So why bother with mnt_list in either?  Or, put it
another way, why have __detach_mnt() separate from detach_mnt()?