All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	autofs mailing list <autofs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ondrej Holy <oholy@redhat.com>,
	Colin Walters <walters@redhat.com>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:16:02 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <253371b7-ce7d-1b97-bbb4-cf2263d6dd28@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7ea302d-2e17-b8bf-242e-fc06c4a0adcb@themaw.net>

On 09/08/17 17:51, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote:
>> Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the
>>> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs to be changed to
>>> return ENOENT when the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag is clear (and the other
>>> required flags are clear).
>>
>> Should the be EREMOTE instead of ENOENT?
> 
> I thought about that and ended up thinking ENOENT was more sensible
> but I'll look at it again.

I think EREMOTE and ENOENT both are inaccurate.

There's no way to know if the negative dentry corresponds to a valid map
key, and we've seen increasing lookups from userspace applications for
invalid directories, so I'm not sure.

I went with ENOENT but I guess we could use EREMOTE, what's your thinking
on why EREMOTE might be better than ENOENT?

Ian

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	autofs mailing list <autofs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ondrej Holy <oholy@redhat.com>,
	Colin Walters <walters@redhat.com>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:16:02 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <253371b7-ce7d-1b97-bbb4-cf2263d6dd28@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7ea302d-2e17-b8bf-242e-fc06c4a0adcb@themaw.net>

On 09/08/17 17:51, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 09/08/17 16:39, David Howells wrote:
>> Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to handle the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for both system calls the
>>> negative dentry case in follow_automount() needs to be changed to
>>> return ENOENT when the LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT flag is clear (and the other
>>> required flags are clear).
>>
>> Should the be EREMOTE instead of ENOENT?
> 
> I thought about that and ended up thinking ENOENT was more sensible
> but I'll look at it again.

I think EREMOTE and ENOENT both are inaccurate.

There's no way to know if the negative dentry corresponds to a valid map
key, and we've seen increasing lookups from userspace applications for
invalid directories, so I'm not sure.

I went with ENOENT but I guess we could use EREMOTE, what's your thinking
on why EREMOTE might be better than ENOENT?

Ian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-10  2:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-08  4:26 [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored Ian Kent
2017-08-08  4:26 ` Ian Kent
2017-08-08  4:26 ` [PATCH 2/3] autofs - make disc device user accessible Ian Kent
2017-08-08  4:26   ` Ian Kent
2017-08-08  4:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] autofs - make dev ioctl version and ismountpoint " Ian Kent
2017-08-08  4:27   ` Ian Kent
2017-08-08 13:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored Colin Walters
2017-08-08 13:11   ` Colin Walters
2017-08-09  0:45   ` Ian Kent
2017-08-09  0:45     ` Ian Kent
2017-08-09  8:39 ` David Howells
2017-08-09  9:51   ` Ian Kent
2017-08-10  2:16     ` Ian Kent [this message]
2017-08-10  2:16       ` Ian Kent

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=253371b7-ce7d-1b97-bbb4-cf2263d6dd28@themaw.net \
    --to=raven@themaw.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=autofs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oholy@redhat.com \
    --cc=walters@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.