[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx+dcUPK4A19ewpjNKkes7AgmEuTcqY8wYopZ-31ujpjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:44:35 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: Invalid /proc/<pid>/fd/{0,1,2} symlinks with TIOCGPTPEER
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> unshare --mount
> mount --bind /dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx
> chmod 666 /dev/ptmx
Oh. Why are you using a bind mount in the first place?
Anyway, I guess we just have to add another special case for this.
Which doesn't look horrible. Right now path_pts() just does
ret = path_parent_directory(path);
and that simply doesn't work for a bind mount file.
I think we could just change path_parent_directory() to go through
file bind mounts. The other user is follow_dotdot(), but that always
takes a directory, so it wouldn't be affected.
But it's probably safer to just teach path_pts to just walk up the
bind mount first, and then do the existing path_parent_directory.
Anybody want to just try that thing?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists