Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 29/11/17 10:13, Mike Marion wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:17:27PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > >> How big do people see /proc/self/mount* getting? What size reads >> does 'strace' show the various programs using to read it? > > We already have line counts into 5 figures. This wasn't an

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 28/11/17 00:01, Mike Marion wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:36:49AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > >> And with the move of userspace to use /proc based mount tables (one >> example being the symlink of /etc/mtab into /proc) even modest sized >> direct mount maps will

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 28/11/17 00:01, Mike Marion wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:36:49AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > >> And with the move of userspace to use /proc based mount tables (one >> example being the symlink of /etc/mtab into /proc) even modest sized >> direct mount maps will

[PATCH 2/2] autofs: revert fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

modifications. So that will be done instead and the autofs module documentation updated with a description of the problem and what needs to be done by module users for this specific case. Reverts: 42f4614821 Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: Neil Brown <ne...@suse.com> Cc

[PATCH 1/2] autofs: revert take more care to not update last_used on path walk

the patch being reverted introduces a regression which should be fixed. Reverts: 092a53452b Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: Neil Brown <ne...@suse.com> Cc: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> --- fs/autofs4/root.c | 17 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertion

[PATCH 2/2] autofs: revert fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

modifications. So that will be done instead and the autofs module documentation updated with a description of the problem and what needs to be done by module users for this specific case. Reverts: 42f4614821 Signed-off-by: Ian Kent Cc: Neil Brown Cc: Al Viro Cc: David Howells Cc: Colin Walters

[PATCH 1/2] autofs: revert take more care to not update last_used on path walk

the patch being reverted introduces a regression which should be fixed. Reverts: 092a53452b Signed-off-by: Ian Kent Cc: Neil Brown Cc: Al Viro --- fs/autofs4/root.c | 17 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/autofs4/root.c b/fs/autofs4/root.c

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 12:49, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 23/11/17 10:21, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hey Neil, I'm looking at this again because RH QE have complained about

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 12:49, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 23/11/17 10:21, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hey Neil, I'm looking at this again because RH QE have complained about

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 11:04, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 23/11/17 08:47, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 11:04, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 23/11/17 08:47, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 10:46, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/11/17 10:21, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> >>> Hey Neil, I'm looking at this again because RH QE have complained about >>> a regression test failing with a kernel that has this

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 10:46, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/11/17 10:21, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> >>> Hey Neil, I'm looking at this again because RH QE have complained about >>> a regression test failing with a kernel that has this

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 10:21, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> >> Hey Neil, I'm looking at this again because RH QE have complained about >> a regression test failing with a kernel that has this change. >> >> Maybe I'm just dumb but I though

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 10:21, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> >> Hey Neil, I'm looking at this again because RH QE have complained about >> a regression test failing with a kernel that has this change. >> >> Maybe I'm just dumb but I though

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 09:43, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/11/17 08:47, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>> The fstatat(2) and statx

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 09:43, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/11/17 08:47, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>> The fstatat(2) and statx

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 08:47, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> The fstatat(2) and statx() calls can pass the flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT >>>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 23/11/17 08:47, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> The fstatat(2) and statx() calls can pass the flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT >>>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 22/11/17 12:28, Ian Kent wrote: > On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> The fstatat(2) and statx() calls can pass the flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT >>> which is meant to clear the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag and prevent triggerin

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 22/11/17 12:28, Ian Kent wrote: > On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> The fstatat(2) and statx() calls can pass the flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT >>> which is meant to clear the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag and prevent triggerin

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> The fstatat(2) and statx() calls can pass the flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT >> which is meant to clear the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag and prevent triggering >> of an automount by the call. But this flag is

Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 21/11/17 09:53, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, May 10 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> The fstatat(2) and statx() calls can pass the flag AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT >> which is meant to clear the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag and prevent triggering >> of an automount by the call. But this flag is

Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't fail mount for transient error

On 03/11/17 09:40, NeilBrown wrote: > Hi Neil, and thanks taking the time to post the patch. > Currently if the autofs kernel module gets an error when > writing to the pipe which links to the daemon, then it > marks the whole moutpoint as catatonic, and it will stop working. > > It is

Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't fail mount for transient error

On 03/11/17 09:40, NeilBrown wrote: > Hi Neil, and thanks taking the time to post the patch. > Currently if the autofs kernel module gets an error when > writing to the pipe which links to the daemon, then it > marks the whole moutpoint as catatonic, and it will stop working. > > It is

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses 32bit addressation

On 14/09/17 19:39, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > > 14.09.2017 13:29, Ian Kent пишет: >> On 14/09/17 17:24, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: >>> >>> >>> 14.09.2017 02:38, Ian Kent пишет: >>>> On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses 32bit addressation

On 14/09/17 19:39, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > > 14.09.2017 13:29, Ian Kent пишет: >> On 14/09/17 17:24, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: >>> >>> >>> 14.09.2017 02:38, Ian Kent пишет: >>>> On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsbur

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses 32bit addressation

On 14/09/17 17:24, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > > 14.09.2017 02:38, Ian Kent пишет: >> On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbur...@virtuozzo.com> >>> --- >>> fs/autofs4/autofs_i.

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses 32bit addressation

On 14/09/17 17:24, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > > 14.09.2017 02:38, Ian Kent пишет: >> On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy >>> --- >>> fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h |3 +++ >>> fs/aut

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses 32bit addressation

On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy > --- > fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h |3 +++ > fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |3 +++ > fs/autofs4/inode.c |4 +++- > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses 32bit addressation

On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy > --- > fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h |3 +++ > fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |3 +++ > fs/autofs4/inode.c |4 +++- > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] autofs: fix autofs_v5_packet dlivery in compat mode

On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > The problem is that in compat mode struct autofs_v5_packet has to have > different size > (i.e. 4 bytes less). I regret (several times over) my original decision to not make v5 packets packed I have to say the description of the problem is

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] autofs: fix autofs_v5_packet dlivery in compat mode

On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > The problem is that in compat mode struct autofs_v5_packet has to have > different size > (i.e. 4 bytes less). I regret (several times over) my original decision to not make v5 packets packed I have to say the description of the problem is

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 19:03, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On 24 August 2017 at 06:07, NeilBrown <ne...@suse.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> >>> That inconsistency has bothered me for quite a while now. >&

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 19:03, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On 24 August 2017 at 06:07, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> >>> That inconsistency has bothered me for quite a while now. >>> >>>

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 12:07, NeilBrown wrote: > > > The more precise details, that automount action for indirect automount > points is not triggered when the 'browse' option is used, is probably > not necessary. > > Ian: if you agree with that text, and Michael doesn't provide alternate > evidence, I'll

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 12:07, NeilBrown wrote: > > > The more precise details, that automount action for indirect automount > points is not triggered when the 'browse' option is used, is probably > not necessary. > > Ian: if you agree with that text, and Michael doesn't provide alternate > evidence, I'll

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 12:07, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> >> That inconsistency has bothered me for quite a while now. >> >> It was carried over from the autofs module behavior when automounting >> support was added to the VFS.

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 12:07, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> >> That inconsistency has bothered me for quite a while now. >> >> It was carried over from the autofs module behavior when automounting >> support was added to the VFS.

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 11:21, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: >>> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 24/08/17 11:21, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: >>> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 10:54, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/08/17 10:40, Ian Kent wrote: >> On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: >>> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 10:54, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/08/17 10:40, Ian Kent wrote: >> On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: >>> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 10:40, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: >> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, ). >>

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 10:40, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: >> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, ). >>

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>>> >>>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, ). >>>> That '0' would need to include one of >>>> LOOKUP

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote: > On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>>> >>>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, ). >>>> That '0' would need to include one of >>>> LOOKUP

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >>> >>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, ). >>> That '0' would need to include one of >>> LOOKUP_PARENT | LOOKUP_DIRECTORY | >>> LOOKUP_OPEN |

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >>> >>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, ). >>> That '0' would need to include one of >>> LOOKUP_PARENT | LOOKUP_DIRECTORY | >>> LOOKUP_OPEN |

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 21/08/17 14:23, NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 18/08/17 13:24, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 17 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 21/08/17 14:23, NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 18/08/17 13:24, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 17 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 18/08/17 14:47, Ian Kent wrote: > On 18/08/17 13:24, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 14 2017, Jeff

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 18/08/17 14:47, Ian Kent wrote: > On 18/08/17 13:24, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17 2017, Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 14 2017, Jeff

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 18/08/17 13:24, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 14 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mo

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 18/08/17 13:24, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17 2017, Ian Kent wrote: > >> On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 14 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mo

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 09:36 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: On Fri, Aug 11 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 05:55 +, Trond

Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???

On 16/08/17 19:34, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:43 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 09:36 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: On Fri, Aug 11 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 05:55 +, Trond

[PATCH 3/5] autofs: use AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_SIZE

essary abstraction when all it needs is sizeof(struct autofs_dev_ioctl)) Edit: imk That's a good point but I'd prefer to keep the macro define. End edit: imk Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 14

[PATCH 3/5] autofs: use AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_SIZE

it needs is sizeof(struct autofs_dev_ioctl)) Edit: imk That's a good point but I'd prefer to keep the macro define. End edit: imk Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi Signed-off-by: Ian Kent --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 14 +++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH 1/5] autofs: remove unused AUTOFS_IOC_EXPIRE_DIRECT/INDIRECT

y. End edit: imk Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> --- include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h |2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h b/include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h index 7c6da423d54e..9

[PATCH 1/5] autofs: remove unused AUTOFS_IOC_EXPIRE_DIRECT/INDIRECT

-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi Signed-off-by: Ian Kent --- include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h |2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h b/include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h index 7c6da423d54e..9453e9a07c9d 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/auto_fs4.h +++ b/include/uapi

[PATCH 2/5] autofs: non functional header inclusion cleanup

From: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> Having header includes before any macro (without any dependency) simply looks normal. No reason to have these macros in between. Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> --- fs/

[PATCH 5/5] autofs: use unsigned int/long instead of uint/ulong for ioctl args

value of autofs_dev_ioctl_compat(). It's already long. Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4

[PATCH 2/5] autofs: non functional header inclusion cleanup

From: Tomohiro Kusumi Having header includes before any macro (without any dependency) simply looks normal. No reason to have these macros in between. Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi Signed-off-by: Ian Kent --- fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h | 22 +++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions

[PATCH 5/5] autofs: use unsigned int/long instead of uint/ulong for ioctl args

already long. Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi Signed-off-by: Ian Kent --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c index a990c9d0f893..b7c816f39404 100644 --- a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c

[PATCH 4/5] autofs: drop wrong comment

From: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> This comment was correct when it was added in 8d7b48e0 in 2008, but not after 4e44b685 in 2009 which introduced find_autofs_mount(). Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi <tkus...@tuxera.com> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> -

[PATCH 4/5] autofs: drop wrong comment

From: Tomohiro Kusumi This comment was correct when it was added in 8d7b48e0 in 2008, but not after 4e44b685 in 2009 which introduced find_autofs_mount(). Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Kusumi Signed-off-by: Ian Kent --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |5 - 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff

Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 09/08/17 17:51, Ian Kent wrote: > On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote: >> Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: >> >>> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the >>> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs

Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 09/08/17 17:51, Ian Kent wrote: > On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote: >> Ian Kent wrote: >> >>> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the >>> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs to be changed to >>> return ENOE

Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote: > Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: > >> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the >> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs to be changed to >> return ENOENT when the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUN

Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote: > Ian Kent wrote: > >> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the >> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs to be changed to >> return ENOENT when the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag is clear (and the other >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 08/08/17 21:11, Colin Walters wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Ian Kent wrote: > >> --- a/include/linux/fs.h >> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h >> @@ -3022,8 +3022,7 @@ static inline int vfs_lstat(const char __user *name, >> struct kstat *stat) >> s

Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 08/08/17 21:11, Colin Walters wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Ian Kent wrote: > >> --- a/include/linux/fs.h >> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h >> @@ -3022,8 +3022,7 @@ static inline int vfs_lstat(const char __user *name, >> struct kstat *stat) >> s

[PATCH 2/3] autofs - make disc device user accessible

-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: Colin Walters <walt...@redhat.com> Cc: Ondrej Holy <oh...@redhat.com> --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c index dd9f1bebb5a3..218a4ecc75

[PATCH 2/3] autofs - make disc device user accessible

-by: Ian Kent Cc: Colin Walters Cc: Ondrej Holy --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c index dd9f1bebb5a3..218a4ecc75cc 100644 --- a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c +++ b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c

[PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

entry case already handled. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> Cc: Colin Walters <walt...@redhat.com> Cc: Ondrej Holy <oh...@redhat.com> --- fs/namei.c | 15 --- include/linux/fs.h |3 +-- 2 files chan

[PATCH 3/3] autofs - make dev ioctl version and ismountpoint user accessible

Some of the autofs miscellaneous device ioctls need to be accessable to user space applications without CAP_SYS_ADMIN to get information about autofs mounts. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: Colin Walters <walt...@redhat.com> Cc: Ondrej Holy <oh...@redhat.com> -

[PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

entry case already handled. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent Cc: David Howells Cc: Colin Walters Cc: Ondrej Holy --- fs/namei.c | 15 --- include/linux/fs.h |3 +-- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c index ddb6a7c2b3d4..1180f9c58

[PATCH 3/3] autofs - make dev ioctl version and ismountpoint user accessible

Some of the autofs miscellaneous device ioctls need to be accessable to user space applications without CAP_SYS_ADMIN to get information about autofs mounts. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent Cc: Colin Walters Cc: Ondrej Holy --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 12 include/uapi

Re: [PATCH] autofs: sanity check status reported with AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_FAIL

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 12:13 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:08:38 +1000 NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > > > If a positive status is passed with the AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_FAIL > > > ioctl, autofs4_d_automount() will return

Re: [PATCH] autofs: sanity check status reported with AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_FAIL

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 12:13 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:08:38 +1000 NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > > > If a positive status is passed with the AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_FAIL > > > ioctl, autofs4_d_automount() will return > > >    

Re: [PATCH RFC] mnt: umount mounts one by one in umount_tree()

On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 00:08 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote: > With this patch, we don't try to umount all mounts of a tree together. > Instead of this we umount them one by one. In this case, we see a significant > improvement in performance for the worsе case. Indeed, umount has been very slow for a

Re: [PATCH RFC] mnt: umount mounts one by one in umount_tree()

On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 00:08 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote: > With this patch, we don't try to umount all mounts of a tree together. > Instead of this we umount them one by one. In this case, we see a significant > improvement in performance for the worsе case. Indeed, umount has been very slow for a

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 17:45 +, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 14:04 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > David Howells writes: > > > > > Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the > > > kernel and > > > to provide some methods to create

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 17:45 +, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 14:04 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > David Howells writes: > > > > > Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the > > > kernel and > > > to provide some methods to create and manipulate them.

[ANNOUNCE] autofs 5.1.3 release

Hi all, It's time for a new release, autofs-5.1.3. Of particular interest is the addition browse support for amd format maps. The browsable_dirs configuration option can be set to either "yes" or "no" and the pseudo option "browsable" can be used as an option of mount type "auto" mounts. Note

[ANNOUNCE] autofs 5.1.3 release

Hi all, It's time for a new release, autofs-5.1.3. Of particular interest is the addition browse support for amd format maps. The browsable_dirs configuration option can be set to either "yes" or "no" and the pseudo option "browsable" can be used as an option of mount type "auto" mounts. Note

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 03:26 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > So far no one has even bothered to seriously try the one solution that > is guaranteed to work because it takes a lot of changes to kernel code. > I believe the last effort snagged on what a pain it is to refactor the > user mode

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 03:26 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > So far no one has even bothered to seriously try the one solution that > is guaranteed to work because it takes a lot of changes to kernel code. > I believe the last effort snagged on what a pain it is to refactor the > user mode

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 12:21 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > >  (3) nfsdcltrack.  A way for NFSD to access stable storage for  > > > > tracking of persistent state.  Again, network-namespace  > > > > dependent, but also perhaps mount-namespace dependent. > > > > Definitely mount-namespace

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 12:21 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > >  (3) nfsdcltrack.  A way for NFSD to access stable storage for  > > > > tracking of persistent state.  Again, network-namespace  > > > > dependent, but also perhaps mount-namespace dependent. > > > > Definitely mount-namespace

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:22 +0100, David Howells wrote: > Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the kernel and > to provide some methods to create and manipulate them. > > The reason I think this is necessary is that the kernel has no idea how to > direct upcalls to what

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:22 +0100, David Howells wrote: > Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the kernel and > to provide some methods to create and manipulate them. > > The reason I think this is necessary is that the kernel has no idea how to > direct upcalls to what

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 09:53 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > [Added missing cc to containers list] > On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:22 +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the kernel  > > and to provide some methods to create and manipulate them. > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 09:53 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > [Added missing cc to containers list] > On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:22 +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the kernel  > > and to provide some methods to create and manipulate them. > >

[PATCH 2/3] autofs - make dev ioctl version and ismountpoint user accessible

. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: Colin Walters <walt...@redhat.com> Cc: Ondrej Holy <oh...@redhat.com> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 12 include/uapi/linux/Kbuild |1 + include/uapi/linux/auto_dev-io

[PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

entry case already handled. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> Cc: Colin Walters <walt...@redhat.com> Cc: Ondrej Holy <oh...@redhat.com> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org --- fs/namei.c | 15 --- include/linux/fs

[PATCH 1/3] autofs - make disc device user accessible

-by: Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> Cc: Colin Walters <walt...@redhat.com> Cc: Ondrej Holy <oh...@redhat.com> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c inde

[PATCH 2/3] autofs - make dev ioctl version and ismountpoint user accessible

. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent Cc: Colin Walters Cc: Ondrej Holy Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org --- fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 12 include/uapi/linux/Kbuild |1 + include/uapi/linux/auto_dev-ioctl.h |2 +- 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

entry case already handled. Signed-off-by: Ian Kent Cc: David Howells Cc: Colin Walters Cc: Ondrej Holy Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org --- fs/namei.c | 15 --- include/linux/fs.h |3 +-- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/nam

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >