On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, at 6:28 PM, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 22/11/23 04:42, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, at 2:42 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> handle = listmount_open(mnt_id, flags);
>>> for (;;) {
>>> child_id = listmount_next(handle);
>>> if (child_id == 0)
>>> break;
>>> /* do something with child_id */
>>> }
>>> listmount_close(handle)
>>
>> Why can't these be plain old open, read, and close? Starting from a pathname
>> in /proc or /sys. Doesn't allow lseek.
>
> I'm not sure how this would work, there aren't a series of paths in proc
> that represent mounts?
It would be a new one created for this purpose.
listmount_open(mnt_id, flags) ==
open("/proc/mount_ids", O_RDONLY) +
ioctl(fd, LISTMNT_QUERY_ID, mnt_id) +
ioctl(fd, LISTMNT_QUERY_FLAGS, flags)
and then read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf)) gives you sizeof(buf)/sizeof(mntid_t)
mount IDs.
Or, if you prefer, keep the new listmount_open() system call but have it
return a file descriptor that acts like a pipe filled with all the child
mount IDs. The main point of my suggestion is that listmount_next and
listmount_close can, and should (IMO), just be read() and close().
Note that I'm _not_ suggesting a text-based interface like most of /proc.
What you read is native-endian binary mount IDs.
> One is that open() is a fairly high overhead system call and it so it
> won't cope well with traversing a large volume of mounts.
...
> Second is that, because the mount table lives in a file (actually more
> than one with slightly different formats) it needs to be traversed every
> time one is looking for a mount which has been shown to be high overhead,
Does my clarified explanation address these concerns?
zw
