On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:37:58PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> Adding Al Viro into CC
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:24:39AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > +struct vfsmount *get_vfsmount_sb(struct super_block *sb)
> > +{
> > + struct vfsmount *ret_vfs = NULL;
> > + struct mount *mnt;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + lock_mount_hash();
> > + if (list_empty(&sb->s_mounts))
> > + goto out;
> > + mnt = list_entry(sb->s_mounts.next, struct mount, mnt_instance);
>
> from include/linux/fs.h:
>
> struct super_block {
> ...
> struct list_head s_mounts; /* list of mounts; _not_ for fs use */
> ...
> };
>
> I hear a storm in the distance coming our direction ... so I'll
> preemptively NAK this change.
Could you explain what the devil is that for? The primitive looks rather
bogus - if nothing else, it includes "make random instance of the filesystem
in someone's namespace appear busy to umount", which doesn't look like a
part of useful interface... The only piece of context I'd been able to find
was something vague about sysfs-inflicted operations and wanting to use
mnt_want_write() but having nothing to pass it; BTW, what if the (random)
instance you run into happens to mounted r/o?
Assuming that your superblock is guaranteed to stay alive and usable for
whatever work you are trying to do, what's wrong with sb_want_write()?
If it's _not_ guaranteed to stay so, and this is what you are trying to
solve, you are doing that at the wrong level - just take sysfs entry
removals earlier in shutdown process and be done with that. Beginning of
close_ctree() would probably be early enough to be safe, but if that's
not enough, you can take it into the beginning of btrfs_kill_super().
--
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
