[PATCH v4 2/6] mounts: keep list of mounts in an rbtree

[Ian Kent]

On 30/10/23 13:37, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 28/10/23 09:36, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On 27/10/23 16:17, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 5:12 AM Ian Kent <raven at themaw.net> wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/23 22:02, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>>>> The mnt.mnt_list is still used to set up the mount tree and for
>>>>> propagation, but not after the mount has been added to a 
>>>>> namespace.  Hence
>>>>> mnt_list can live in union with rb_node.  Use MNT_ONRB mount flag to
>>>>> validate that the mount is on the correct list.
>>>> Is that accurate, propagation occurs at mount and also at umount.
>>> When propagating a mount, the new mount's mnt_list is used as a head
>>> for the new propagated mounts.  These are then moved to the rb tree by
>>> commit_tree().
>>>
>>> When umounting there's a "to umount" list called tmp_list in
>>> umount_tree(), this list is used to collect direct umounts and then
>>> propagated umounts.  The direct umounts are added in umount_tree(),
>>> the propagated ones umount_one().
>>>
>>> Note: umount_tree() can be called on a not yet finished mount, in that
>>> case the mounts are still on mnt_list, so umount_tree() needs to deal
>>> with both.
>>>
>>>> IDG how the change to umount_one() works, it looks like umount_list()
>>>>
>>>> uses mnt_list. It looks like propagate_umount() is also using 
>>>> mnt_list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>> So when a mount is part of a namespace (either anonymous or not) it is
>>> on the rb tree, when not then it can temporarily be on mnt_list.
>>> MNT_ONRB flag is used to validate that the mount is on the list that
>>> we expect it to be on, but also to detect the case of the mount setup
>>> being aborted.
>>>
>>> We could handle the second case differently, since we should be able
>>> to tell when we are removing the mount from a namespace and when we
>>> are aborting a mount, but this was the least invasive way to do this.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation, what you've said is essentially what I
>>
>> understood reading the series.
>>
>>
>> But I still haven't quite got this so I'll need to spend more time
>>
>> on this part of the patch series.
>>
>>
>> That's not a problem, ;).
>
> After cloning your git tree and looking in there I don't see what
>
> I was concerned about so I think I was confused by obscurity by
>
> diff rather than seeing a real problem, ;)
>
>
> Still that union worries me a little bit so I'll keep looking at
>
> the code for a while.

Is fs/namespace.c:iterate_mounts() a problem?

It's called from:

1) ./kernel/audit_tree.c:709: if (iterate_mounts(compare_root,
2) ./kernel/audit_tree.c:839:    err = iterate_mounts(tag_mount, tree, mnt);
3) ./kernel/audit_tree.c:917:        failed = iterate_mounts(tag_mount, 
tree, tagged);


 From functions 1) audit_trim_trees(), 2) audit_add_tree_rule() and

3) audit_tag_tree().


>
>
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Miklos
>>>
>>
>