From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422802AbcIZQTO (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:19:14 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:57189 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161485AbcIZQTL (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:19:11 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Ian Kent Cc: Mateusz Guzik , NeilBrown , Andrew Morton , autofs mailing list , Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , Omar Sandoval References: <20160914061434.24714.490.stgit@pluto.themaw.net> <20160914061445.24714.68331.stgit@pluto.themaw.net> <20160917201000.omswgttgyzcu7jt6@mguzik> <1474248973.3204.14.camel@themaw.net> <87oa3iikgf.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474411462.22440.2.camel@themaw.net> <1474412413.22440.7.camel@themaw.net> <1474507987.12887.5.camel@themaw.net> <87k2e4c541.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474592141.3345.20.camel@themaw.net> <877fa39z1q.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474604774.3083.1.camel@themaw.net> <87oa3e8m2v.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1474675869.3078.3.camel@themaw.net> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:05:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1474675869.3078.3.camel@themaw.net> (Ian Kent's message of "Sat, 24 Sep 2016 08:11:09 +0800") Message-ID: <878tue8x4s.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1boYcW-0008GI-Nt;;;mid=<878tue8x4s.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=75.170.125.99;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18gT6xpLKWwTr2q+EvQ+mXSrlUI2KvCkTk= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 75.170.125.99 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: **;Ian Kent X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 462 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.9 (0.8%), b_tie_ro: 2.7 (0.6%), parse: 1.10 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 13 (2.7%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.2 (0.5%), tests_pri_-1000: 4.9 (1.1%), tests_pri_-950: 1.15 (0.2%), tests_pri_-900: 0.97 (0.2%), tests_pri_-400: 25 (5.5%), check_bayes: 24 (5.3%), b_tokenize: 7 (1.5%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (1.7%), b_comp_prob: 2.3 (0.5%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.9 (0.6%), b_finish: 0.74 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 404 (87.5%), check_dkim_signature: 0.62 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.1 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 4.2 (0.9%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] autofs - make mountpoint checks namespace aware X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ian Kent writes: > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Ian Kent writes: >> >> 2> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > Ian Kent writes: >> > > >> > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > > > Ian Kent writes: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Eric, Mateusz, I appreciate your spending time on this and >> > > > > > particularly >> > > > > > pointing >> > > > > > out my embarrassingly stupid is_local_mountpoint() usage mistake. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please accept my apology for the inconvenience. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If all goes well (in testing) I'll have follow up patches to correct >> > > > > > this >> > > > > > fairly >> > > > > > soon. >> > > > > >> > > > > Related question. Do you happen to know how many mounts per mount >> > > > > namespace tend to be used? It looks like it is going to be wise to >> > > > > put >> > > > > a configurable limit on that number. And I would like the default to >> > > > > be >> > > > > something high enough most people don't care. I believe autofs is >> > > > > likely where people tend to use the most mounts. >> > >> > Yes, I agree, I did want to try and avoid changing the parameters to >> > ->d_mamange() but passing a struct path pointer might be better in the long >> > run >> > anyway. >> >> Given that there is exactly one implementation of d_manage in the tree I >> don't imagine it will be disruptive to change that. > > Yes, but it could be used by external modules. > > And there's also have_submounts(). Good point about have_submounts. > I can update that using the existing d_walk() infrastructure or take it (mostly) > into the autofs module and get rid of have_submounts(). > > I'll go with the former to start with and see what people think. That will be interesting to so. It is not clear to me that if d_walk needs to be updated, and if d_walk doesn't need to be updated I would be surprised to see it take into autofs. But I am happy to look at the end result and see what you come up with. Eric