linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/30] r/o bind mounts: stub functions

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

Message-ID: <20080216010030.GC26734@mit.edu>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:00:30 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, miklos@...redi.hu,
	akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/30] r/o bind mounts: stub functions

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 04:49:39PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 19:32 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:37:30PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > 
> > > This patch adds two function mnt_want_write() and mnt_drop_write().
> > > These are used like a lock pair around and fs operations that might
> > > cause a write to the filesystem.
> > 
> > Argh, is there some reason why this couldn't have gotten merged in
> > -rc1, ahead of the rest of the patch series?  This one is going to
> > cause more cross-tree merge pain with any filesystem tree that have
> > changes to fs/*/ioctl.c.
> 
> I wasn't meaning for this to hit the 2.6.25-rc series.  We had some
> review comments just when the merge window opened, and I was expecting
> them to get stuck back in -mm for another round.

Yeah, but it means that I need one set of patches for -mm, and another
set of patches for Linus's mainline.  I notice that your patchset is
currently missing changes for fs/ext4/ioctl.c --- I think because you
dropped them when Mingming picked them up, and then I dropped them
when I was trying to prepare the set of patches to push to Linus.

No problem, I'm sure I can ressurect them, but it's still the same
basic problem that when there are patchsets such as yours which touch
multiple trees in -mm, there are almost inevitably patch conflicts.

It would be nice if an initial patch which introduces the new
functionality you need for r/o bind mounts could get introduced into
mainline *first*, and then people could add patches that call
mnt_want_write(), et. al into their trees gradually.

As it is, I can't see a way around this other than maintaining two
separate patch sets, one that works with r/o bind mounts, and one for
mainline, since otherwise akpm gets grumpy and starts dropping either
your patchset or the ext4 patchset because *he* has to manually fix up
the patch conflicts.  (So instead I have to deal with it by hand, and
then *I* get grumpy.  :-/)

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/