On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Christian Brauner
<christian.brau...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> This is the second iteration of this patch.

This looks good to me. Just wondering how this should be merged, and
whether we should have a Cc: stable for it?

.. and, just in case, maybe Al can verify that there's nothing subtle
about follow_up() that we need to worry about. That said, NFS already
has that exact same loop for follow_to_parent(), just syntactically
slightly different version.

In fact, I wonder if we even need to do that

        if ((DEVPTS_SB(path.mnt->mnt_sb) == fsi) &&
            (path.mnt->mnt_root == fsi->ptmx_dentry)) {

and maybe we could do the follow_up() loop unconditionally?

Because if the ptmx dentry is *not* a bind mount, then the loop will
be a no-op, and if it *is* a bind-mount, then I'm not convinced we
should even try to just limit it to the devpts case - maybe somebody
did a bind-mount on just a legacy ptmx device node?

So that "if()" actually seems to be to be superfluous, and only limit
the "follow bind mounts' case unnecessarily. Hmm?


Reply via email to