On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:43:22AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 08:44:25AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 03:36:57PM -0800, Valerie Aurora wrote: > > > From: Jan Blunck <[email protected]> > > > > > > This is a bugfix/replacement for commit > > > 051d381259eb57d6074d02a6ba6e90e744f1a29f: > > > > > > During a path walk if an autofs trigger is mounted on a dentry, > > > when the follow_link method is called, the nameidata struct > > > contains the vfsmount and mountpoint dentry of the parent mount > > > while the dentry that is passed in is the root of the autofs > > > trigger mount. I believe it is impossible to get the vfsmount of > > > the trigger mount, within the follow_link method, when only the > > > parent vfsmount and the root dentry of the trigger mount are > > > known. > > > > > > The solution in this commit was to replace the path embedded in the > > > parent's nameidata with the path of the link itself in > > > __do_follow_link(). This is a relatively harmless misuse of the > > > field, but union mounts ran into a bug during follow_link() caused by > > > the nameidata containing the wrong path (we count on it being what it > > > is all other places - the path of the parent). > > > > > > A cleaner and easier to understand solution is to save the necessary > > > vfsmount in the autofs superblock info when it is mounted. Then we > > > can easily update the vfsmount in autofs4_follow_link(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: <[email protected]> > > > > Don't know how I missed such an obvious solution when I did this. > > Thanks, Ian > > TBH, I don't like either variant (both the in-tree one and that). > The reason why vfsmount does *NOT* belong in superblock, TYVM: you've > messed the lifetime rules. You can't pin it down, or the damn thing will > be impossible to kill. OTOH, you have no promise whatsoever that superblock > won't outlive the initial vfsmount. You might get another vfsmount over > the same thing and once the original one is gone... > > So this is simply broken.
Ian, you're the expert - any ideas? What are the constraints here? -VAL _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
