Re: Removing shared subtrees?

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Mon Sep 29 2014 - 20:36:54 EST

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:14:55PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I understand that:
>> # mount --make-rshared /
>> # mount --rbind / /mnt
>> # umount - /mnt/dev
>> should unmount /dev. That's the whole point. But why does unmounting
>> */mnt* propagate like that? It doesn't unmount /. To me, this makes
>> about as much sense as having 'umount -l /mnt/dev' unmount /dev/pts
>> but *not* /dev would make.
> Aha. And what, pray tell, does umount -l /mnt do to mounts deeper in
> the tree? Forget about shared, etc. - what, in your opinion, does umount -l
> mean wrt the stuff mounted on /mnt? /mnt/dev, for example...

Ideally it would leave them around until the whole subtree had no
references, at which point /mnt and everything under it would
disappear with no side effects, because it has no references.

I suspect it detaches them immediately, especially after reading the
rest of your email.

>> > What for?
>> Simplicity and comprehensibility.
> Such an elegant way to say "I can't be arsed to read"... For what it's
> worth: MNT_DETACH is *not* "detach the subtree as whole, busy or not".
> It's "unmount all mounts within the subtree, busy or not". At which point
> the self-LART you keep describing becomes quite easy to comprehend, doesn't
> it?

Again, *I have no problem with the current semantics of umount -l*,
except insofar as they interact really nastily with shared subtrees.
I have a problem with bidirectional shared subtrees *in general*.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at