[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140417221456.GD18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 23:14:56 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Detaching mounts on unlink for 3.15
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:12:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> * *KERNEL* vfsmounts; anything without MNT_INTERNAL is fair game
> as far as ordering of fs shutdown is concerned. If it wasn't MNT_INTERNAL,
> and we'd done mntput() before destroying some data structures needed for
s/before/just before/, of course ;-)
> fs shutdown, we had been fucked anyway - no warranties that mntput() had
> been the final one. Moreover, that means going through kern_unmount() or
> simple_release_fs(). Which is trivially dealt with by providing
> mntput_sync(mnt) that *will* wait and using it in those two. Again, if
> we have an extra reference (e.g. stuffed into a struct file, etc.) -
> we can't rely on mntput() being final.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists