[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231011163220.GA1970@templeofstupid.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:32:20 -0700
From: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
German Maglione <gmaglione@...hat.com>,
Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>, Max Reitz <mreitz@...hat.com>,
Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH v2 2/2] fuse: ensure that submounts lookup their
parent
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:07:33AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 03:26, Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com> wrote:
>
> > I am curious what you have in mind in order to move this towards a
> > proper fix? I shied away from the approach of stealing a nlookup from
> > mp_fi beacuse it wasn't clear that I could always count on the nlookup
> > in the parent staying positive. E.g. I was afraid I was either going to
> > not have enough nlookups to move to submounts, or trigger a forget from
> > an exiting container that leads to an EBADF from the initial mount
> > namespace.
>
> One idea is to transfer the nlookup to a separately refcounted object
> that is referenced from mp_fi as well as all the submounts.
That seems possible. Would the idea be to move all tracking of nlookup
to a separate refcounted object for the particular nodeid, or just do
this for the first lookup of a submount?
Would you like me to put together a v3 that heads this direction?
Thanks,
-K
Powered by blists - more mailing lists