linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the fuse tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:02:06 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the fuse tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/fuse/dev.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   dbf107b2a7f3 ("fuse: Remove the buggy retranslation of pids in fuse_dev_do_read")
>   c9582eb0ff7d ("fuse: Fail all requests with invalid uids or gids")
>   8cb08329b080 ("fuse: Support fuse filesystems outside of init_user_ns")
>
> from the fuse tree and commits:
>
>   dbf107b2a7f3 ("fuse: Remove the buggy retranslation of pids in fuse_dev_do_read")
>   c9582eb0ff7d ("fuse: Fail all requests with invalid uids or gids")
>   8cb08329b080 ("fuse: Support fuse filesystems outside of init_user_ns")
>
> from the userns tree.
>
> These commits seem to have been rebased in the fuse tree on top of
>
>   3b7008b226f3 ("fuse: return -ECONNABORTED on /dev/fuse read after abort")
>
> and modified a bit.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the fuse tree version, but please come to
> some arrangement about which is correct) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

As Miklos has merged these I plan to drop these changes from my tree.

Eric