Re: [PATCH 12/13] sysfs: Propagate renames to the vfs on demand

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Sat Nov 07 2009 - 06:57:50 EST

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009, ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> It isn't what I want but it is what the VFS requires. If let the vfs
>> >> continue on it's delusional state we will leak the vfs mount and
>> >> everything mounted on top of it, with no way to remove the mounts.
> "umount -l" on the whole thing will clear any submounts up too.
>> >
>> > This is caused by not having any way to prevent deletion on
>> > directories with submounts, right? How does other distributed
>> > filesystems deal with directories with submounts going away underneath
>> > it?
>> NFS does exactly the same thing I am doing.
> Yes, this is a problem for NFS too. You cannot tell the NFS server
> "this directory is mounted on some client, don't let anything happen
> to it!". Basically the remaining choices are:
> a) let the old path leading up to the mount still be accessible, even
> though it doesn't exist anymore on the server (or has been replaced
> with something different)
> b) automatically dissolve any submounts if the path disappeard on the
> server
> I think Al was arguing in favor of b), while Linus said that mounts
> must never just disappear, so a) is better. I don't think an
> agreement was reached.

I haven't seen that conversation. I do know it is non-intutive and if
you attempt to delete what is a mount point in another mount namespace
and it won't go away. (What we do for non-distributed filesystems).
So I would favor mount points dissolving if we had the infrastructure.

Regardless the goal for now is to simply catch up with other distributed

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at