linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the pidfd 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:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:14:39 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the pidfd
 tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:00:38 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the fscache tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/fs.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ba73d98745be ("namei: handle idmapped mounts in may_*() helpers")
> 
> from the pidfd tree and commit:
> 
>   0de0bdfa19fa ("vfs: Export rw_verify_area() for use by cachefiles")
> 
> from the fscache 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 include/linux/fs.h
> index 7762d3d75230,493804856ab3..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@@ -2839,22 -2756,11 +2839,23 @@@ static inline int bmap(struct inode *in
>   }
>   #endif
>   
>  -extern int notify_change(struct dentry *, struct iattr *, struct inode **);
>  -extern int inode_permission(struct inode *, int);
>  -extern int generic_permission(struct inode *, int);
>  -extern int __check_sticky(struct inode *dir, struct inode *inode);
>  +int notify_change(struct user_namespace *, struct dentry *,
>  +		  struct iattr *, struct inode **);
>  +int inode_permission(struct user_namespace *, struct inode *, int);
>  +int generic_permission(struct user_namespace *, struct inode *, int);
>  +static inline int file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
>  +{
>  +	return inode_permission(file_mnt_user_ns(file),
>  +				file_inode(file), mask);
>  +}
>  +static inline int path_permission(const struct path *path, int mask)
>  +{
>  +	return inode_permission(mnt_user_ns(path->mnt),
>  +				d_inode(path->dentry), mask);
>  +}
>  +int __check_sticky(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir,
>  +		   struct inode *inode);
> + extern int rw_verify_area(int, struct file *, const loff_t *, size_t);
>   
>   static inline bool execute_ok(struct inode *inode)
>   {

With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this
conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped