Re: [RFC PATCH] file as directory

[Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>]

> > > + * This is tricky, because for namespace modification we must take the
> > > + * namespace semaphore.  But mntput() is called from various places,
> > > + * sometimes with namespace_sem held.  Fortunately in those places the
> > > + * mount cannot yet have MNT_DIRONFILE, or at least that's what I
> > > + * hope...
> > > + *
> > > + * The umounting is done in two stages, first the mount is removed
> > > + * from the hashes.  This is done atomically wrt other mount lookups,
> > > + * so it's not possible to acquire a new ref to this dead mount that
> > > + * way.
> > > + *
> > > + * Then after having locked namespace_sem and relocked vfsmount_lock,
> > > + * the mount is properly detached.
> > > + */
> > > +static void umount_dironfile(struct vfsmount *mnt)
> > > +	__releases(vfsmount_lock)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct nameidata nd;
> > 
> > You've got to be kidding.  nameidata is *big*.  If anything, we want
> > to make detach_mnt() take struct path * instead, but even that is
> > lousy due to recursion.
> > 
> > I really don't like what's going on here.  The thing is, current code
> > is based on assumption that presence in the mount tree => holding a
> > reference.  We _might_ deal with that (there was an old plan to change
> > refcounting logics for vfsmounts), but that sort of games with locks
> > spells trouble.  What happens, for example, if namespace gets cloned
> > before you grab namespace_sem?
> 
> It _should_ work.  The mount in the new namespace will be created
> (with namespace_sem held, so we can't yet free this mount), and then
> dropped, because there are no refs to it.

BTW, I'm not saying I like this.  It's pretty ugly and fragile.  But
it's damn convenient to get rid of these mounts from mntput().

Is there a better alternative?

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/