vnode refcnt bug?

Ian Dowse iedowse at
Tue Nov 25 13:07:34 PST 2003

In message <200311252003.hAPK3Bb9017036 at>, Erez Zadok wr
>Please see this short thread of discussion on amd-dev.  I've included two
>messages from this thread.  It suggests that fbsd5 may have a vnode refcount
>bug (a vnode isn't held where it should).
>I've not personally investigated this bug.  Does anyone on fs@ has come
>across such a possible bug?

Hmm, I guess it is caused by checkdirs() in vfs_mount.c moving the
process cwd to the underlying vnode before attempting the unmount.
Does this only happen if the cwd is at the mount point itself?

When a file system is first mounted, checkdirs() looks for processes
that had a cwd or chroot set to the vnode that is about to be
covered.  It moves these processes to the new mountpoint vnode.
This behaviour goes back a long time (I'm not sure what the reasons
were), but it had the problem that you would get a "Device busy"
error if you attempted to unmount the file system later, and a
forced unmount would leave the process with a stale cwd or chroot
vnode (i.e.  "mount /mnt; umount /mnt" would fail if any processes
previously had a cwd of /mnt, and "mount /mnt; umount -f /mnt" would
cause such processes to lose their reference to the /mnt directory).

More recently (Feb 2001), I changed unmount to undo the checkdirs()
step so that processes with a cwd or chroot at the mount point get
moved back to the covered vnode before the unmount is attempted.
This fixes the two issues, but it has the side-effect that if the
only vnode references to a file system are processes whose cwd or
chroot directory is on the mountpoint, then the unmount will succeed,
and those processes will be moved to the underlying directory.

The reference count checks could be moved to before checkdirs(),
but I think there are cases where the current behaviour is preferable,
so maybe it needs to be an unmount() flag...  BTW, does amd delete
the mountpoint directory after the unmount? That would explain why
the directory goes away entirely.


More information about the freebsd-fs mailing list