Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:04:13 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 255061] [PATCH] Proof of concept nested mounts for automounter -hosts map Message-ID: <bug-255061-227-69fQASnW7y@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-255061-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-255061-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D255061 Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trasz@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #1 from Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@FreeBSD.org> --- Hello, and thank you! I'm really happy to see work being done on what's probably the main piece of functionality missing from our current automount= er. I like the approach you've taken. Regarding the unmounting problem (notes.= txt, #1): I agree about it being the primary missing piece. I'm not sure I like= the idea of recursive unmounts (or recursive anything) in the kernel. I wonder, though, using your example: /net (autofs) /net/foo/a (nfs, automounted) /net/foo/a/b (autofs, automounted) /net/foo/a/x (autofs, automounted) /net/foo/a/b/c (nfs, automounted) It should be technically possible (using 'umount -f') to forcibly unmount /net/foo/a despite /net/foo/a/b and its siblings still being mounted, and unmount the (now unaccessible) submounts afterwards. Thus, it might be possible to add a flag to the unmount(2) syscall to make it to fail the unmount(2) syscall with EBUSY if there are still vnodes open, except the on= es with autofs submounts mounted over it? Regarding notes.txt, #4: I think autofs(5) doesn't stop just the initial th= read that triggered the mount, but also all other attempts to access the same mountpoint - the threads should "queue up" on the automountd request struct= ure, and get unpaused after automountd signals the mount is done. As for all the other points, I generally agree, or just have nothing to add= at the moment. I've only skimmed through the source for now, but don't have a= ny major suggestions yet apart from a fairly general ones, eg that it might ma= ke sense to use tree(3) macros, or not check for NULL before free(3). I wonder, should we perhaps move this discussion to http://reviews.FreeBSD.= org? Thanks again! --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-255061-227-69fQASnW7y>