linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/34] teach move_mount(2) to work with OPEN_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:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:56:30 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@...il.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mszeredi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/34] teach move_mount(2) to work with OPEN_TREE_CLONE [ver #12]

Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@...il.com> wrote:

> I replied last time to wonder about the MNT_UMOUNT mnt_flag. So I've tested it
> now :-), on David's current tree (commit 5581f4935add).
> 
> The modified do_move_mount() allows re-attaching something that was
> lazy-unmounted. But the lazy unmount sets MNT_UMOUNT. And this flag is not
> cleared when the mount is re-attached.

Sorry, yes.  I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is.  Should it
just return -EPERM or -ESTALE if MNT_UMOUNT is set?

David