On 2026-03-05T03:13:37+0300, Askar Safin wrote: > Alejandro Colomar : > > Is this the same as a "mount object file descriptor" as describer in > > fsopen(2)? If so, we should use the same language, I think. > > The term "mount object file descriptor" is probably confusing. In fact > fsmount simply creates detached mount and returns O_PATH fd, referring > to the root of the new detached mount. (Note: I'm talking about fsmount here, > not fsopen.) This fd is similar to what open(O_PATH) > creates. So probably we should just replace this "mount object file > descriptor" in fsopen(2) with "O_PATH fd". Except for expanding fd by file descriptor, what you say sounds reasonable to me. > > The only difference between fd, returned by fsmount, and normal O_PATH > descriptor is that fd, returned by fsmount, has FMODE_NEED_UNMOUNT flag > on file description: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.0-rc1/source/fs/namespace.c#L4495 . > > This FMODE_NEED_UNMOUNT means that when we close fd, the mount is unmounted. > > > This statmount patch refers to any fd inside mount in question. I. e. any > fd referring to any file inside the mount. This may include O_PATH descriptors > and, yes, descriptors returned by fsmount. So, current wording in this > statmount patch is correct. Thanks for having a look! And thanks for confirming it's correct! Have a lovely night! Alex > > -- > Askar Safin > --