Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-17 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 19:13, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > So here is how this could be implemented. See the lengthy explanations in > the patch headers, too. Turns out I messed up with one of Neil's review comments. Here is yet another update. With this fix, everything works as expected

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-17 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 19:13, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: So here is how this could be implemented. See the lengthy explanations in the patch headers, too. Turns out I messed up with one of Neil's review comments. Here is yet another update. With this fix, everything works as expected

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-15 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Thursday 15 February 2007 04:53, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > What's the point in changing pipefs... you can *never* > reach it *anyway*, even if it was a /-style path, since > pipefs is a NOMNT filesystem. The point is that we could then get rid of the special case for MS_NOUSER filesystems like

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-15 Thread Jan Engelhardt
Hi, On Feb 14 2007 14:57, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >[2] > >pipe: "pipe:[439336]" (or "pipe/[439336]") > >[3] Always make disconnected paths double-slashed: >-- >pipe: "//pipe/[439336]"

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-15 Thread Jan Engelhardt
Hi, On Feb 14 2007 14:57, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: [2] pipe: pipe:[439336] (or pipe/[439336]) [3] Always make disconnected paths double-slashed: -- pipe: //pipe/[439336] lazily

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-15 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Thursday 15 February 2007 04:53, Jan Engelhardt wrote: What's the point in changing pipefs... you can *never* reach it *anyway*, even if it was a /-style path, since pipefs is a NOMNT filesystem. The point is that we could then get rid of the special case for MS_NOUSER filesystems like

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:57, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > [1] Always make disconnected paths relative: > > From all these choices, I actually like [1] best, together with hiding > unreachable mount points in /proc/$pid/mounts and /proc/$pid/mountstats: > there is no real point in

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Sunday 04 February 2007 16:15, Neil Brown wrote: > The behaviour in the face of a lazy unmount should be clarified in > this comment. Done. > If sys_getcwd is called on a directory that is no longer > connected to the root, it isn't clear to me that it should return > without an error. >

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 11:39, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 07:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > We could prepend another '/' (so that you'd have a path that starts with > > "//"). That's still a legal path, but it's also somethign that even POSIX > > says is valid

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 07:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: > We could prepend another '/' (so that you'd have a path that starts with > "//"). That's still a legal path, but it's also somethign that even POSIX > says is valid to mean something else (eg "//ftp/.." or "//socket/.." to > escape into

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > Mountpoints are reported relative to the chroot if they are reachable from > the > chroot, and relative to the namespace they are defined in otherwise. This is > big nonsense, but it's unclear to me how to best fix it: Well, it's also what

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:29, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > What's the point in reporting the rootfs at all -- it's never reachable > > to an ordinary process? > > /init and its childs has it as root, until it passes control over to > /sbin/init Yes,

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Olaf Hering
On Wed, Feb 14, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > What's the point in reporting the rootfs at all -- it's never reachable to an > ordinary process? /init and its childs has it as root, until it passes control over to /sbin/init - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Monday 05 February 2007 00:32, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Here is an updated patch that also catches this special case. > [...] The d_path change was to not start unreachable paths with slashes. In the extreme case, this leads to an empty string. As it turns out, we are reporting

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Monday 05 February 2007 00:32, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: Here is an updated patch that also catches this special case. [...] The d_path change was to not start unreachable paths with slashes. In the extreme case, this leads to an empty string. As it turns out, we are reporting meaningless

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Olaf Hering
On Wed, Feb 14, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: What's the point in reporting the rootfs at all -- it's never reachable to an ordinary process? /init and its childs has it as root, until it passes control over to /sbin/init - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:29, Olaf Hering wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: What's the point in reporting the rootfs at all -- it's never reachable to an ordinary process? /init and its childs has it as root, until it passes control over to /sbin/init Yes, that's

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: Mountpoints are reported relative to the chroot if they are reachable from the chroot, and relative to the namespace they are defined in otherwise. This is big nonsense, but it's unclear to me how to best fix it: Well, it's also what a

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 07:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: We could prepend another '/' (so that you'd have a path that starts with //). That's still a legal path, but it's also somethign that even POSIX says is valid to mean something else (eg //ftp/.. or //socket/.. to escape into another

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 11:39, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: On Wednesday 14 February 2007 07:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: We could prepend another '/' (so that you'd have a path that starts with //). That's still a legal path, but it's also somethign that even POSIX says is valid to mean

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Sunday 04 February 2007 16:15, Neil Brown wrote: The behaviour in the face of a lazy unmount should be clarified in this comment. Done. If sys_getcwd is called on a directory that is no longer connected to the root, it isn't clear to me that it should return without an error. Without

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-14 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:57, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: [1] Always make disconnected paths relative: From all these choices, I actually like [1] best, together with hiding unreachable mount points in /proc/$pid/mounts and /proc/$pid/mountstats: there is no real point in pretending

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-05 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Friday 02 February 2007 19:23, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Hello, > > here is a bugfix to d_path. Please apply (after 2.6.20). > > First, when d_path() hits a lazily unmounted mount point, it tries to > prepend the name of the lazily unmounted dentry to the path name. It > gets this wrong, and

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-05 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Friday 02 February 2007 19:23, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: Hello, here is a bugfix to d_path. Please apply (after 2.6.20). First, when d_path() hits a lazily unmounted mount point, it tries to prepend the name of the lazily unmounted dentry to the path name. It gets this wrong, and also

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-04 Thread Neil Brown
On Friday February 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > here is a bugfix to d_path. Please apply (after 2.6.20). Looks good! Just a couple of little comments (to prove that I have really read it and thought about it :-) > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-04 Thread Neil Brown
On Friday February 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, here is a bugfix to d_path. Please apply (after 2.6.20). Looks good! Just a couple of little comments (to prove that I have really read it and thought about it :-) Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviewed-by:

[PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-02 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
Hello, here is a bugfix to d_path. Please apply (after 2.6.20). First, when d_path() hits a lazily unmounted mount point, it tries to prepend the name of the lazily unmounted dentry to the path name. It gets this wrong, and also overwrites the slash that separates the name from the following

[PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

2007-02-02 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
Hello, here is a bugfix to d_path. Please apply (after 2.6.20). First, when d_path() hits a lazily unmounted mount point, it tries to prepend the name of the lazily unmounted dentry to the path name. It gets this wrong, and also overwrites the slash that separates the name from the following