Re: [PATCH] Fix __d_path for lazy unmounts

From: John Johansen
Date: Fri Feb 26 2010 - 12:07:58 EST


On 02/26/2010 04:07 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Johansen<john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

When __d_path() hits a lazily unmounted mount point, it tries to prepend
the name of the lazily unmounted dentry to the path name. It gets this wrong,
and also overwrites the slash that separates the name from the following
pathname component. This patch fixes that; if a process was in directory
/foo/bar and /foo got lazily unmounted, the old result was ``foobar'' (note the
missing slash), while the new result with this patch is ``/foo/bar''.

Example:

# mkdir -p /tmp/foo/bar
# mkdir /tmp/mnt
# mount --bind /tmp/foo /tmp/mnt
# cd /tmp/mnt/bar
# /bin/pwd
/tmp/mnt/bar
# umount -l /tmp/mnt
# /bin/pwd
foobar

After the patch it will be /foo/bar.

Why is the path starting with "/foo"? Does that make any sense?

not a lot except, connecting disconnected paths to root is what
is currently done for paths that aren't reachable but have an fs
as their root (ie the last dentry is / so it looks connected to
root).

I would be happy in this case to leave bind mounts disconnected
(no leading /) and just fix the overwriting of the internal /.

I'll make the change.

Last time this was discussed the proposals which are halfway sane
were:

a) "(unreachable)/bar" or something along those lines
b) ENOENT

right, I actually have another couple of __d_path patches I need
to kick out for discussion. Last time we rolled 3 different
changes into a single patch. This time I wanted to isolate the
changes per patch. I'll kick them all out today.

And with either one care needs to be taken to limit this change to
interfaces (both internal and userspace) where it's not likely to
cause breakage.

agreed.

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