From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758648AbcIWT2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:28:55 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:35714 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751827AbcIWT2t (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:28:49 -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> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:15:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1474604774.3083.1.camel@themaw.net> (Ian Kent's message of "Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:26:14 +0800") Message-ID: <87oa3e8m2v.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=1bnW9O-00066O-VT;;;mid=<87oa3e8m2v.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.97.64;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1//74gCuOD9SPEKrjJnHan2gYflBrgwUTw= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.97.64 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 375 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.6 (1.0%), b_tie_ro: 2.6 (0.7%), parse: 1.03 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 12 (3.3%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.52 (0.4%), tests_pri_-1000: 4.9 (1.3%), tests_pri_-950: 1.14 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 0.97 (0.3%), tests_pri_-400: 22 (5.8%), check_bayes: 21 (5.5%), b_tokenize: 6 (1.5%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (1.7%), b_comp_prob: 1.75 (0.5%), b_tok_touch_all: 5 (1.4%), b_finish: 0.67 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 321 (85.6%), check_dkim_signature: 0.46 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 2.7 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 5 (1.3%), 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: 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. Eric