On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 03:02:09PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 05:43:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > We want to mount beneath the given location. For that operation to > > make sense, location must be the root of some mount that has something > > under it. Currently we let it proceed if those requirements are not met, > > with rather meaningless results, and have that bogosity caught further > > down the road; let's fail early instead - do_lock_mount() doesn't make > > sense unless those conditions hold, and checking them there makes > > things simpler. > > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Well, do_lock_mount() was already convoluted enough that didn't want > that in there as well. But I don't care, It helps when it comes to cleaning it up - look at the condition it's in after 34/52...
