On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Ian Kent wrote: > It appears that there is a situation in which autofs thinks the lock > is still held when it is not. A race (no doubt) or maybe a missing test in > the wait. So my feeling of wanting to eliminate the locking returns again. > Sorry.
Agreed that problems in mount's lock should be fixed, but my diagnosis of the autofs situation went like this: it acquires its lock, then it tries to do a nested automount, and the nested instance can't get the lock. I suggested statting the referent in advance, to trigger the nested mount ahead of time. Autofs might do this: if it decides (before acquiring the mount) that it's going to do a bind mount, then it stats the referent, triggering nested automount(s) if any. Would it disrupt the logic too much to recognize the bind mount before getting the lock? If we trust mount's lock, and don't do locking in autofs, I wonder if nested automounts would put mount into exactly the same deadlock that autofs is getting into now? James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key) _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
