On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:44:20 +0300
Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> >> - bm_data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct binfmt_misc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> - if (!bm_data)
> >> - return -ENOMEM;
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bm_data->entries);
> >> + rwlock_init(&bm_data->entries_lock);
> >>
> >>
- bm_data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct binfmt_misc), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!bm_data)
- return -ENOMEM;
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bm_data->entries);
+ rwlock_init(&bm_data->entries_lock);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bm_data->entries);
- rwlock_init(&bm_data->en
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:59:34 +0300
Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:51:49 +0300
> Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
>
> > The assumption that bm_fill_super() is not called for the second time
> > for CT is wrong: umount operation clears sb->s_root, which causes
> > vfs_get_super() t
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:51:49 +0300
Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> The assumption that bm_fill_super() is not called for the second time
> for CT is wrong: umount operation clears sb->s_root, which causes
> vfs_get_super() to call fill_super again on the next mount.
>
> Make bm_fill_super() handle mu
It shall be [PATCH vz8] - sorry for missing that.
vz7/vz8/vz9?
--
Best regards,
Konstantin Khorenko,
Virtuozzo Linux Kernel Team
On 18.10.2021 19:51, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
The assumption that bm_fill_super() is not called for the second time
for CT is wrong: umount operation clears sb->s_
vz7/vz8/vz9?
--
Best regards,
Konstantin Khorenko,
Virtuozzo Linux Kernel Team
On 18.10.2021 19:51, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
The assumption that bm_fill_super() is not called for the second time
for CT is wrong: umount operation clears sb->s_root, which causes
vfs_get_super() to call fill_supe
