From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 25 15:38:46 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C7016A4CE
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 999FA43F93
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:38:45 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from iedowse@maths.tcd.ie)
Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP
          id <aa05451@salmon>; 25 Nov 2003 23:38:45 +0000 (GMT)
To: Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.sunysb.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:22:27 EST."
             <200311252122.hAPLMRfE018534@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> 
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:44 +0000
From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <200311252338.aa05451@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
cc: amd-dev@cs.columbia.edu
cc: fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: vnode refcnt bug? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:47 -0000

In message <200311252122.hAPLMRfE018534@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>, Erez Zadok wr
ites:
>Hmmm, yes I think that could be a serious problem (esp. since fbsd doesn't
>have autofs yet).  And I think it deviates from "norms" where a cwd is
>essentially occupying a vnode within the mounted f/s and therefore the f/s
>shouldn't be unmounted!  This is rather bad for users who sit on an nfs mnt
>point, ls'ing files happily, and then the kernel unmounts the mnt pt, moves
>their cwd down to the covered (typically empty) vnode, and the poor user's
>next /bin/ls shows nothing.

Yes, I agree completely - however the question of what to do with
references to about-to-be-covered vnodes at mount time still remains.
I'll have to look in more detail at why the checkdirs() approach
was needed in the first place to see if simply removing it is an
option.

Any other approaches I can think of right now for solving this issue
appear to either extend the original checkdirs() hack, or else just
replace one kind of undesirable behaviour with another.

Ian