[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bn43qqlb.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:27:12 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/21] fs: Allow sysfs and cgroupfs to share super blocks between user namespaces
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:45:31AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > But if we do that it violates some of the assumptions of the patch to
>> > rework MNT_NODEV on your testing branch (and also those behind patch 2
>> > in this series). Something will need to be changed there to prevent a
>> > regression in mount behavior when a user ns tries to mount without
>> > MNT_NODEV when the mount inherited from its parent has it set.
>>
>> Thank you for pointing that out. I will look into that.
>>
>> I believe I know exactly what you are talking about. Of the choices I
>> think it is better to a minor localized change in the fs_fully_visible
>> logic than it is to cause problems elsewhere.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> >> Apologies for not catching this earlier.
>> >
>> > Actually this is a more recent patch, so you possibly hadn't seen it
>> > before.
>> >
>> >> I am looking at folding all of this into the patch that introduces
>> >> sget_userns so that even bisects won't have regresssions.
>> >
>> > That's fine with me.
>>
>> And thank you for keeping everything as separate patches. That is at
>> least helping me catch up. Even if I don't agree that these things
>> should be separate come merge time.
>
> Honestly I probably would have squashed some of them into that first
> patch myself if you hadn't already applied it to your testing branch, so
> that's all just luck.
>
> Keep in mind that I also have that patch for mqueue that isn't in this
> series, and I haven't yet checked to see if the 4.7 merges introduce
> anything which is going to require updating these patches. I was
> planning to wait and send out updates after -rc1, but if you want that
> stuff sooner just let me know.
As unfortunately I don't have anything going into -rc1 I am working on
this right now.
Let me finish sorting out the sget_userns and mnt nodev mess and I will
push something out and then we can compare notes. I think I have mqueue
covered by other changes. As it is in the set of filesystems that
should just use sget_userns.
I am sorting through the nodev corner of this now. It should just be a
day or two.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists