Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:31:28 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: KATO Takenori <kato@migmatite.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp>, current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recursive mount [ was Re: -STABLE reboots ] Message-ID: <9710241231.aa02348@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:22:29 -0000." <199710231822.LAA29050@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Makeing mount priveledged is a kludge. Indeed - though might it be useful for other reasons? (User NFS mounts a directory from their laptop, which they take home, leaving you unable to unmount that directory and all its ancestors? Unless forced umounting of NFS works in 3.0) > Is this a production environment patch? I've a dual processor machine with about 1000 undergrads with accounts on it, so its really a matter of time before someone discovers how to knock it over that way. > There's not really any > conceptual difference between root and non-root mounts, once the > greation of a mount struct instance is abstracted from it's mapping > into the FS hierarchy by moving the latter into common code. I take it that this would factor the recursive lock problem out of the VFS code into the generic mount code, and make it a bit more straight forward to fix? David.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <9710241231.aa02348>