Re: [PATCH] lazy umount (1/4)

Alexander Viro (
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:54:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > There are only two things to take care of -
> > a) if we detach a parent we should do it for all children
> > b) we should not mount anything on "floating" vfsmounts.
> > Both are obviously staisfied for current code (presence of children
> > means that vfsmount is busy and we can't mount on something that
> > doesn't exist).
> I disagree about the "we can't mount on something that doesn't exist"
> part.
> If the detached mount is busy, it might be busy exactly because somebody
> has his working directory in it. Which means that
> mount /dev/hda ./xxxx
> by such a process could cause a mount within the "nonexisting" mount.

Sure, which is exactly why we need to add checks. See part 3 - calls of
check_mnt() prevent precisely that kind of situations.

What I mean is that adding these checks is backwards-compatible -
in absence of lazy umounts they are never triggered.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at