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? Linus