On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:16:52PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > And I certainly agree that it ought to be replaced by will/wont pair to
> > close the remount race. One that had been there all along. All fh_verify()
> > callers of that kind need it - we want to pull mnt_{will,wont}_write()
> > pair into callers *and* stretch to protect the entire relevant area.
> >
> > Which contains vfs_...() in case of nfsd_create, etc. See what I mean?
> > That's exactly the thing I'd been talking about - the area we want to
> > cover is _bigger_ than vfs_...() and contains nfsd-specific logic. IOW,
> > doesn't get folded into any VFS-provided helper.
>
> I still don't get it why it needs to cover nfsd-specifi logic. What
> does nfsd have to do with r/o mounts?
Explain to me again, how fh_verify() manages to contain no nfsd-specific
logics. Please. You are right - we do have races there. Always had.
And nfsd_permission() is the next target for continuation of ro-bind
series. Assuming that we don't simply make r/w export to hold will_write
all along, in which case all these checks around calls of vfs_...() in
there simply go away - that's also an arguable option.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
