Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:28:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:28:34 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:15320 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:28:18 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:57:43 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Ton Hospel cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PROBLEM: multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4 In-Reply-To: <92lpm4$nvr$1@post.home.lunix> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ton Hospel wrote: > It should still need a special flag or something, since it's > impossible for userspace to check this atomically. To check _what_? Having the same tree mounted in several places is allowed. End of story. Atomicity of any kind is a non-issue - if you have processes that do not cooperate and do random mounts you are getting exactly what you are asking for. BTW, mount(2) is outside of POSIX scope. Ditto for SuS, so references to standards are not likely to work. Not allowing multiple mounts of the same fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point (late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux it had been fixed during the last spring. That's it. You were never promised that multiple mounts will not work. Moreover, in special cases they did work since long - e.g. Linux procfs could be mounted in several places since '94, if not earlier. AFAIK NFS implementations allowed the same thing since mid-80s... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/