[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210215080521.45f7a061@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:05:21 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the vfs tree
Hi all,
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:00:54 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/namei.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e36cffed20a3 ("fs: make unlazy_walk() error handling consistent")
> 1e8f44f159b3 ("do_tmpfile(): don't mess with finish_open()")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
> 47291baa8ddf ("namei: make permission helpers idmapped mount aware")
> ba73d98745be ("namei: handle idmapped mounts in may_*() helpers")
> 549c7297717c ("fs: make helpers idmap mount aware")
>
> from the pidfd tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> diff --cc fs/namei.c
> index 4cae88733a5c,dbf53b325ac9..000000000000
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
> @@@ -1568,14 -1639,18 +1644,16 @@@ static struct dentry *lookup_slow(cons
> return res;
> }
>
> - static inline int may_lookup(struct nameidata *nd)
> + static inline int may_lookup(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
> + struct nameidata *nd)
> {
> if (nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU) {
> - int err = inode_permission(nd->inode, MAY_EXEC|MAY_NOT_BLOCK);
> + int err = inode_permission(mnt_userns, nd->inode,
> + MAY_EXEC | MAY_NOT_BLOCK);
> - if (err != -ECHILD)
> + if (err != -ECHILD || !try_to_unlazy(nd))
> return err;
> - if (unlazy_walk(nd))
> - return -ECHILD;
> }
> - return inode_permission(nd->inode, MAY_EXEC);
> + return inode_permission(mnt_userns, nd->inode, MAY_EXEC);
> }
>
> static int reserve_stack(struct nameidata *nd, struct path *link, unsigned seq)
> @@@ -3324,9 -3453,11 +3453,9 @@@ static int do_tmpfile(struct nameidata
> path.dentry = child;
> audit_inode(nd->name, child, 0);
> /* Don't check for other permissions, the inode was just created */
> - error = may_open(&path, 0, op->open_flag);
> + error = may_open(mnt_userns, &path, 0, op->open_flag);
> - if (error)
> - goto out2;
> - file->f_path.mnt = path.mnt;
> - error = finish_open(file, child, NULL);
> + if (!error)
> + error = vfs_open(&path, file);
> out2:
> mnt_drop_write(path.mnt);
> out:
With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this
conflict still exists.
Those vfs tree commits have also been merged into the block tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists