linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 May 2016 02:08:39 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/overlayfs/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup")
> 
> from the overlayfs tree and commit:
> 
>   5cf3e7fecb43 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the overlayfs version, since I don't know the
> locking consequences of teh change from lookup_one_len() to lookup_hash())
> 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.

Should use lookup_one_len_unlocked(), actually.  lookup_hash() is
a microoptimization, losing a lot more on excessive i_mutex contention.
Either variant works, though.