Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 03:43:18PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> +void detach_mounts(struct dentry *dentry)
>> +{
>> + struct mount *mnt, *next;
>> + struct mountpoint *mp;
>> +
>> + namespace_lock();
>> + if (!d_mountpoint(dentry)) {
>> + namespace_unlock();
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + mp = new_mountpoint(dentry);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mp)) {
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + br_write_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(mnt, next, &mp->m_list, mnt_mp_list) {
>
> I don't think list_for_each_entry_safe is actually safe enough here. Because
> propageted umounts will likely remove other mounts from the same mountpoint as
> well. Doing it with "while (!list_empty(&mp->m_list))" should be better, and
> AFAICS it will always make progress.
Thanks I will take a look. But on the surface that logic sounds
correct.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
