Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:54:12 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lazy umount (1/4) |
| |
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > There are only two things to take care of - > > a) if we detach a parent we should do it for all children > > b) we should not mount anything on "floating" vfsmounts. > > Both are obviously staisfied for current code (presence of children > > means that vfsmount is busy and we can't mount on something that > > doesn't exist). > > I disagree about the "we can't mount on something that doesn't exist" > part. > > If the detached mount is busy, it might be busy exactly because somebody > has his working directory in it. Which means that > > mount /dev/hda ./xxxx > > by such a process could cause a mount within the "nonexisting" mount.
Sure, which is exactly why we need to add checks. See part 3 - calls of check_mnt() prevent precisely that kind of situations.
What I mean is that adding these checks is backwards-compatible - in absence of lazy umounts they are never triggered.
- 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/
|  |