[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191113074757.5b4u5vlyx2u6pbn6@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 18:47:57 +1100
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 4/9] namei: LOOKUP_BENEATH: O_BENEATH-like scoped
resolution
On 2019-11-13, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> Minor nit here - I'd split "move the conditional call of set_root()
> into nd_jump_root()" into a separate patch before that one. Makes
> for fewer distractions in this one. I'd probably fold "and be
> ready for errors other than -ECHILD" into the same preliminary
> patch.
Will do.
> > + /* Not currently safe for scoped-lookups. */
> > + if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_IS_SCOPED))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EXDEV);
>
> Also a candidate for doing in nd_jump_link()...
>
> > @@ -1373,8 +1403,11 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> > struct inode *inode = nd->inode;
> >
> > while (1) {
> > - if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root))
> > + if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root)) {
> > + if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_BENEATH))
> > + return -EXDEV;
>
> Umm... Are you sure it's not -ECHILD?
It wouldn't hurt to be -ECHILD -- though it's not clear to me how likely
a success would be in REF-walk if the parent components didn't already
trigger an unlazy_walk() in RCU-walk.
I guess that also means LOOKUP_NO_XDEV should trigger -ECHILD in
follow_dotdot_rcu()?
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists