[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9383.1560418050@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:27:30 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression for MS_MOVE on kernel v5.1
[Adding Eric to the cc list since he implemented MNT_LOCKED]
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > The commit changes the internal logic to lock mounts when propagating
> > mounts (user+)mount namespaces and - I believe - causes do_mount_move()
> > to fail at:
>
> You mean 'do_move_mount()'.
>
> > if (old->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_LOCKED)
> > goto out;
> >
> > If that's indeed the case we should either revert this commit (reverts
> > cleanly, just tested it) or find a fix.
>
> Hmm.. I'm not entirely sure of the logic here, and just looking at
> that commit 3bd045cc9c4b ("separate copying and locking mount tree on
> cross-userns copies") doesn't make me go "Ahh" either.
>
> Al? My gut feel is that we need to just revert, since this was in 5.1
> and it's getting reasonably late in 5.2 too. But maybe you go "guys,
> don't be silly, this is easily fixed with this one-liner".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists