On Jul 9, 12:27am, Rhialto wrote:
} On Mon 06 Jul 2015 at 09:58:59 +0000, David Holland wrote:
}
} > Also it's occasionally useful to mount over things and leave a process
} > underneath, which this logic seems to complicate.
}
} If I read the code correctly, it looks for processes that have a current
} working directory or root directory exactly at the mount point. But the
} mount point directory does not need to be empty. A process could have a
} cwd or root in any directory inside it. So as-is, the code is
} insufficient for its intended purpose anyway.
}
} Furthermore, the process can have open files from that directory tree.
} If its cwd or root gets changed (and into what exactly, if it isn't the
} exact mount point?) it has files open that it can't find anymore with
} another call to open(2). That seems like an inconsistency that we may
} want to avoid due to the POLA.
The same process or another process could unlink the open
file. There is no guarantee of being to open(2) a file twice.
}-- End of excerpt from Rhialto
