On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:03, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:47:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I might be barking up entirely the wrong tree.
>
> Yeah, I think you are, it sounds like you're describing an entirely
> different sort of race.
I was just going by Darrick's description of what he saw, which
*seemed* to be that umount had finished with stuff still active:
"Here, umount exits before the filesystem is really torn down, and then
mount fails because it can't get an exclusive lock on the device."
But maybe I misunderstood, and the umount wasn't actually successful
(ie "exits" may have been "failed with EBUSY")?
So I was trying to figure out what could cause the behavior I thought
Darrick was describing, which would imply a mnt_count issue.
If it's purely "umount doesnt' succeed because the filesystem is still
busy with cleanups", then things are much better.
The mnt_count is nasty, if it's not that, we're actually much better
off, and I'll be very happy to have misunderstood Darrick's case.
Linus
