Re: [PATCH] vfs: automount should ignore LOOKUP_FOLLOW
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thu Sep 08 2011 - 18:56:00 EST
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:42:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > You say it's a step in the right direction but I don't see why. ?Either
>> > we want stat *and* lstat to both be correct and trigger the automount or
>> > we are satisfied with the incorrect but well established practice of not
>> > triggering on (l)stat.
>> > The middle ground makes no sense IMO, there's nothing gained by the
>> > differentiated behavior based on LOOKUP_FOLLOW.
>> > Can you explain why it's better if stat() tiggers automounts and gives a
>> > correct result but lstat() doesn't?
>> I have to say that this is a very cogent question.
>> The one thing I've not seen in the thread yet is a description of the
>> failure. What does the regression look like? Just "very slow 'ls' with
>> some versions of 'ls'" or what?
>> I'm inclined to apply the patch as a regression fix, but I'll let this
>> thread try to convince me for another day..
> IIRC, that matches traditional SunOS behaviour and it actually does make
> sense; you want wildcard expansion and ls -l to be doable even when there's
> a stuck NFS server. IOW, non-triggering lstat(2) is a matter of usability...
non-triggering lstat() isn't the issue, afaik. We never trigger on lstat.
nontriggering *stat()* is the issue. We didn't *use* to trigger on
stat() either. Now in 2.6.38+ we do.
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/