linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the xfs 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]

Message-ID: <20210215084243.6e22abeb@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:42:43 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        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 pidfd tree with the xfs tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:24:41 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:14:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   01ea173e103e ("xfs: fix up non-directory creation in SGID directories")
> > 
> > from the xfs tree and commit:
> > 
> >   f736d93d76d3 ("xfs: support idmapped mounts")
> > 
> > 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/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > index e2a1db4cee43,95b7f2ba4e06..000000000000
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > @@@ -809,13 -810,13 +810,13 @@@ xfs_init_new_inode
> >   	inode->i_rdev = rdev;
> >   	ip->i_d.di_projid = prid;
> >   
> >  -	if (pip && XFS_INHERIT_GID(pip)) {
> >  -		inode->i_gid = VFS_I(pip)->i_gid;
> >  -		if ((VFS_I(pip)->i_mode & S_ISGID) && S_ISDIR(mode))
> >  -			inode->i_mode |= S_ISGID;
> >  +	if (dir && !(dir->i_mode & S_ISGID) &&
> >  +	    (mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_GRPID)) {
> >  +		inode->i_uid = current_fsuid();  
> 
> Looking a bit harder, I replaced the above line with
> 		inode->i_uid = fsuid_into_mnt(mnt_userns);
> 
> >  +		inode->i_gid = dir->i_gid;
> >  +		inode->i_mode = mode;
> >   	} else {
> > - 		inode_init_owner(inode, dir, mode);
> >  -		inode->i_gid = fsgid_into_mnt(mnt_userns);
> > ++		inode_init_owner(mnt_userns, inode, dir, mode);
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	/*  

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