Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200522085723.29007-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200522160815.GT23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAOssrKcpQwYh39JpcNmV3JiuH2aPDJxgT5MADQ9cZMboPa9QaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOssrKcpQwYh39JpcNmV3JiuH2aPDJxgT5MADQ9cZMboPa9QaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 20:02:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxi80CFLgeTYbnHvD7GbY_01z0uywP1jF8gZe76_EZYiug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovl: make private mounts longterm
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > -     mntput(ofs->upper_mnt);
> > > -     for (i = 1; i < ofs->numlayer; i++) {
> > > -             iput(ofs->layers[i].trap);
> > > -             mntput(ofs->layers[i].mnt);
> > > +
> > > +     if (!ofs->layers) {
> > > +             /* Deal with partial setup */
> > > +             kern_unmount(ofs->upper_mnt);
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             /* Hack!  Reuse ofs->layers as a mounts array */
> > > +             struct vfsmount **mounts = (struct vfsmount **) ofs->layers;
> > > +
> > > +             for (i = 0; i < ofs->numlayer; i++) {
> > > +                     iput(ofs->layers[i].trap);
> > > +                     mounts[i] = ofs->layers[i].mnt;
> > > +             }
> > > +             kern_unmount_many(mounts, ofs->numlayer);
> > > +             kfree(ofs->layers);
> >
> > That's _way_ too subtle.  AFAICS, you rely upon ->upper_mnt == ->layers[0].mnt,
> > ->layers[0].trap == NULL, without even mentioning that.  And the hack you do
> > mention...  Yecchhh...  How many layers are possible, again?
>
> 500, mounts array would fit inside a page and a page can be allocated
> with __GFP_NOFAIL. But why bother?  It's not all that bad, is it?

FWIW, it seems fine to me.
We can transfer the reference from upperdir_trap to layers[0].trap
when initializing layers[0] for the sake of clarity.

Thanks,
Amir.