On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 05:46:48AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:59:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:56:33AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(to_ns_common(ns)->ns_tree_node))
> >
> > if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&to_ns_common(ns)->ns_tree_node))
> >
> > obviously...
>
> FWIW, how about the following - I put the commit below into never-rebased
> branch, pull it into #work.mount and you do the same to your branch
> just prior to 18/33? The difference from one in #work.mount is that
> this variant checks RB_EMPTY_NODE(&ns->mnt_ns_tree_node) instead of
> list_empty(&ns->mnt_ns_list). The reasons why it's safe lockless are
> pretty much the same...
>
> Objections? Does vfs/vfs.git #no-rebases-mnt_ns_tree_remove look sane
> for you?
Perfect, thank you!
>
> mnt_ns_tree_remove(): DTRT if mnt_ns had never been added to mnt_ns_list
>
> Actual removal is done under the lock, but for checking if need to bother
> the lockless RB_EMPTY_NODE() is safe - either that namespace had never
> been added to mnt_ns_tree, in which case the the node will stay empty, or
> whoever had allocated it has called mnt_ns_tree_add() and it has already
> run to completion. After that point RB_EMPTY_NODE() will become false and
> will remain false, no matter what we do with other nodes in the tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> ---
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index ae6d1312b184..39afeb521a80 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static void mnt_ns_release_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> static void mnt_ns_tree_remove(struct mnt_namespace *ns)
> {
> /* remove from global mount namespace list */
> - if (!is_anon_ns(ns)) {
> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&ns->mnt_ns_tree_node)) {
> mnt_ns_tree_write_lock();
> rb_erase(&ns->mnt_ns_tree_node, &mnt_ns_tree);
> list_bidir_del_rcu(&ns->mnt_ns_list);
