Protection against automount/automount races (two threads hitting the same
referral point at the same time) is based upon do_add_mount() prevention of
identical overmounts - trying to overmount the root of mounted tree with
the same tree fails with -EBUSY.  It's unreliable (the other thread might've
mounted something on top of the automount it has triggered) *and* causes
no end of headache for follow_automount() and its caller, since
finish_automount() behaves like do_new_mount() - if the mountpoint to be is
overmounted, it mounts on top what's overmounting it.  It's not only wrong
(we want to go into what's overmounting the automount point and quietly
discard what we planned to mount there), it introduces the possibility of
original parent mount getting dropped.  That's what 8aef1884 (VFS: Fix
vfsmount overput on simultaneous automount) deals with, but it can't do
anything about the reliability of conflict detection - if something had
been overmounted the other thread's automount (e.g. that other thread
having stepped into automount in mount(2)), we don't get that -EBUSY and
the result is
	 referral point under automounted NFS under explicit overmount
under another copy of automounted NFS

What we need is finish_automount() *NOT* digging into overmounts - if it
finds one, it should just quietly discard the thing it was asked to mount.
And don't bother with actually crossing into the results of finish_automount() -
the same loop that calls follow_automount() will do that just fine on the
next iteration.

IOW, instead of calling lock_mount() have finish_automount() do it manually,
_without_ the "move into overmount and retry" part.  And leave crossing into
the results to the caller of follow_automount(), which simplifies it a lot.

Moral: if you end up with a lot of glue working around the calling conventions
of something, perhaps these calling conventions are simply wrong...

Fixes: 8aef1884 (VFS: Fix vfsmount overput on simultaneous automount)
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>