From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753576Ab1IFIKN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 6 Sep 2011 04:10:13 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:36017 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753330Ab1IFIKI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Sep 2011 04:10:08 -0400
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Leonardo Chiquitto <leonardo.lists@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        autofs@linux.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: automount should ignore LOOKUP_FOLLOW
References: <87liu37z3x.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
	<17416.1315240659@redhat.com> <87hb4q9b3r.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
	<1315281208.3210.26.camel@perseus.themaw.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:09:49 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1315281208.3210.26.camel@perseus.themaw.net> (Ian Kent's message
	of "Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:53:28 +0800")
Message-ID: <87mxeixfaq.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:

> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 19:02 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> 
>> If automounting on lstat(2) is the correct behavior (is it?  why?)  then at
>> least it should be enabled by a global switch or mount option, IMO.
>
> Ideally we wouldn't need to take special precautions for these
> operations at all but we can't, especially for GUI environments that
> constantly scan file systems on mount/umount activity.
>
> Historically for autofs, neither stat(2) or lstat(2) would trigger a
> mount. With the current implementation stat(2) now does but lstat(2)
> doesn't which is a step in the right direction IMHO. So, I recommend we
> continue to encourage user space to make the needed changes so we
> continue to move in the right direction, and yes, I acknowledge it is a
> pain but it'll never get done otherwise.

I'm not quite convinced.  What's the advantage of triggering automount
on stat(2)?

Has anybody complained that stat(2) on the mountpoint doesn't cause an
automount?

Thanks,
Miklos