lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] autofs - make mountpoint checks namespace aware
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 11:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
    >
    > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
    > > >
    > > > 2> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > > > > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > > > > > > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > Eric, Mateusz, I appreciate your spending time on this and
    > > > > > > > > particularly
    > > > > > > > > pointing
    > > > > > > > > out my embarrassingly stupid is_local_mountpoint() usage
    > > > > > > > > mistake.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > Please accept my apology for the inconvenience.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > If all goes well (in testing) I'll have follow up patches to
    > > > > > > > > correct
    > > > > > > > > this
    > > > > > > > > fairly
    > > > > > > > > soon.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Related question. Do you happen to know how many mounts per mount
    > > > > > > > namespace tend to be used? It looks like it is going to be wise
    > > > > > > > to
    > > > > > > > put
    > > > > > > > a configurable limit on that number. And I would like the default
    > > > > > > > to
    > > > > > > > be
    > > > > > > > something high enough most people don't care. I believe autofs is
    > > > > > > > likely where people tend to use the most mounts.
    > > > >
    > > > > Yes, I agree, I did want to try and avoid changing the parameters to
    > > > > ->d_mamange() but passing a struct path pointer might be better in the
    > > > > long
    > > > > run
    > > > > anyway.
    > > >
    > > > Given that there is exactly one implementation of d_manage in the tree I
    > > > don't imagine it will be disruptive to change that.
    > >
    > > Yes, but it could be used by external modules.
    > >
    > > And there's also have_submounts().
    >
    > Good point about have_submounts.
    >
    > > I can update that using the existing d_walk() infrastructure or take it
    > > (mostly)
    > > into the autofs module and get rid of have_submounts().
    > >
    > > I'll go with the former to start with and see what people think.
    >
    > That will be interesting to so. It is not clear to me that if d_walk
    > needs to be updated, and if d_walk doesn't need to be updated I would
    > be surprised to see it take into autofs. But I am happy to look at the
    > end result and see what you come up with.

    I didn't mean d_walk() itself, just the have_submounts() function that's used
    only by autofs these days. That's all I'll be changing.

    To take this functionality into the autofs module shouldn't be a big deal as it
    amounts to a directory traversal with a check at each node.

    But I vaguely remember talk of wanting to get rid of have_submounts() and autofs
    being the only remaining user.

    So I mentioned it to try and elicit a comment, ;)

    >
    > Eric

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-09-27 03:52    [W:3.013 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site