Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-11-01 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrei Vagin writes: > > > > From 8e0f45c0272aa1f789d1657a0acc98c58919dcc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Andrei Vagin > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:57:31 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH]

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-11-01 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrei Vagin writes: > > > > From 8e0f45c0272aa1f789d1657a0acc98c58919dcc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Andrei Vagin > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:57:31 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH] mount: skip all mounts from a shared

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei Vagin writes: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> That is certainly interesting. The problem is that the reason we were >> going slow is that there were in fact mounts that had not been traversed >> in the share group. > > You are

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei Vagin writes: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> That is certainly interesting. The problem is that the reason we were >> going slow is that there were in fact mounts that had not been traversed >> in the share group. > > You are right. > >> >> And

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Andrei, > > This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring > makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your > last test case very interesting. While looking at it in detail > I have

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Andrei, > > This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring > makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your > last test case very interesting. While looking at it in detail > I have

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrei Vagin writes: > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> Andrei, > >> > >> This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring > >> makes the

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:45:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrei Vagin writes: > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> Andrei, > >> > >> This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring > >> makes the code simpler and easier

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei Vagin writes: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Andrei, >> >> This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring >> makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your >> last test case very

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei Vagin writes: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Andrei, >> >> This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring >> makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your >> last test case very interesting. While

[RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-22 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei, This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your last test case very interesting. While looking at it in detail I have realized I don't fully understand why we have both lookup_mnt and lookup_mnt_last,

[RFC][PATCH v2] mount: In propagate_umount handle overlapping mount propagation trees

2016-10-22 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei, This fixes the issue you have reported and through a refactoring makes the code simpler and easier to verify. That said I find your last test case very interesting. While looking at it in detail I have realized I don't fully understand why we have both lookup_mnt and lookup_mnt_last,