Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> It never made any sense - neither when copy_tree() had been introduced
> (2.4.11-pre5), nor at any point afterwards. Mountpoint is meaningless
> without parent mount and the root of copied tree has no parent until we get
> around to attaching it somewhere. At that time we'll have mountpoint set;
> before that we have no idea which dentry will be used as mountpoint.
> IOW, copy_tree() should just leave the default value.
I will just note that does not result in dst_mnt->mnt_mountpoint
being left as NULL.
Rather dst_mnt->mnt_mountpoint retains the value that clone_mnt
sets it to which is dst_mnt->mnt.mnt_root.
It would be nice to have a note that says something like leaving
dst_mnt->mnt_parent and dst_mnt->mnt_mountpoint alone indicates that the
mount is not mounted anywhere, and that the current situation of just
setting one of them completely confusing.
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/namespace.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index e13d9ab4f564..5eeb17c39fcb 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -2259,7 +2259,6 @@ struct mount *copy_tree(struct mount *src_root, struct dentry *dentry,
> return dst_mnt;
>
> src_parent = src_root;
> - dst_mnt->mnt_mountpoint = src_root->mnt_mountpoint;
>
> list_for_each_entry(src_root_child, &src_root->mnt_mounts, mnt_child) {
> if (!is_subdir(src_root_child->mnt_mountpoint, dentry))
