Re: [PATCH 3/4] autofs - make mountpoint checks namespace aware

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 11:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
> > > 
> > > 2> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > > > > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> 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.

I didn't mean d_walk() itself, just the have_submounts() function that's used
only by autofs these days. That's all I'll be changing.

To take this functionality into the autofs module shouldn't be a big deal as it
amounts to a directory traversal with a check at each node.

But I vaguely remember talk of wanting to get rid of have_submounts() and autofs
being the only remaining user.

So I mentioned it to try and elicit a comment, ;)

> 
> Eric