On Mon 06 Jul 2015 at 09:58:59 +0000, David Holland wrote: > Also it's occasionally useful to mount over things and leave a process > underneath, which this logic seems to complicate. If I read the code correctly, it looks for processes that have a current working directory or root directory exactly at the mount point. But the mount point directory does not need to be empty. A process could have a cwd or root in any directory inside it. So as-is, the code is insufficient for its intended purpose anyway. Furthermore, the process can have open files from that directory tree. If its cwd or root gets changed (and into what exactly, if it isn't the exact mount point?) it has files open that it can't find anymore with another call to open(2). That seems like an inconsistency that we may want to avoid due to the POLA. It seems inconsistent to me to "fix" processes that are exactly at the mountpoint directory, but not ones more inside. A possible reason not to handle subdirectories could have been that semantics for that are unclear. But one would have expected some note about that somewhere, given the above. -Olaf. -- ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- The Doctor: No, 'eureka' is Greek for \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- 'this bath is too hot.'
Attachment:
pgpenTTfJKUiD.pgp
Description: PGP signature