On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:45:35 +0800
Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't checked what the side effects would be but using the
> > > LOOKUP_DIRECTORY flag in walks that get caught by the removal of the
> > > LOOKUP_FOLLOW test in follow_automount() and retaining Miklos's original
> > > patch is probably a more natural solution IMO.
> >
> > Ok, I do have to agree with that.
> >
> > So instead of adding a new flag, let's just document a few *logical*
> > rules for what causes auto-mounting:
> >
> > - opening the mount-point itself with LOOKUP_DIRECTORY does so
> >
> > Logic: when you use LOOKUP_DIRECTORY, you expect to see the
> > *contents* of the mount-point.
> >
> > - looking something up *under* the mount-point does so.
> >
> > This may be obvious, but it actually has a non-obvious special
> > case: what about the pathname "mountpoint" vs "mountpoint/"
> >
> > And I think the "LOOKUP_DIRECTORY" rule ends up automatically also
> > resolving that special case: when we have a slash at the end of the
> > last component, it not only implies that we care about the contents,
> > it will also automatically set LOOKUP_DIRECTORY.
> >
> > So I'm getting more and more convinced that LOOKUP_DIRECTORY is
> > actually the right thing to trigger on. It automatically means that
> > "opendir()" on the mountpoint will do the right thing (because
> > O_DIRECTORY results in LOOKUP_DIRECTORY), and it automatically - and
> > very naturally - gives user processes the ability to choose whether
> > they want to see auto-monting or not ("path" doesn't get auto-mounted,
> > but "path/" does).
> >
> > Yet at the same time it keeps the "stupid default behavior for
> > processes that only look at each directory entry and don't even think
> > about automounting" be the "don't auto-mount when not necessary"
> > behavior.
> >
> > So: no new flag. Just make nfs4 use LOOKUP_DIRECTORY, and let's add
> > big documentation notes about this.
>
> Yes, that's what I think is best.
>
> It's late here so I'll survey the code and see if I can find any other
> instances of this and post a patch, tomorrow.
>
> Jeff, could you test adding LOOKUP_DIRECTORY to the walk in
> nfs_follow_remote_path() please, just in case I've got this all wrong.
>
Yep, adding LOOKUP_DIRECTORY also fixes the problem. I'll go ahead and
send a patch to Trond...
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
