linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <946234262523ee1a72d34efd461ac05cea558674.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:58:54 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Christian Brauner
 <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
	Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd
 tree

On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 09:40 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:41:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   b1f1961080c4 ("nfsd: allow layout state to be admin-revoked.")
> > 
> > from the nfsd tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7b8001013d72 ("filelock: don't do security checks on nfsd setlease calls")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner tree.
> 
> Christian, Jeff -
> 
> For the remaining duration of v6.9 development, should I rebase
> nfsd-next on vfs-brauner ?
> 

IMO, no. The fixup is pretty small. A vfs_setlease call got moved in
your tree in one of Neil's patches, so the merge just needs to account
for that when we're doing s/vfs_setlease/kernel_setlease/ in that file.

> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > index b1e585c1d9a3,4c0d00bdfbb1..4f3072b5979a
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c
> > @@@ -152,23 -152,6 +152,23 @@@ void nfsd4_setup_layout_type(struct svc
> >   #endif
> >   }
> >   
> >  +void nfsd4_close_layout(struct nfs4_layout_stateid *ls)
> >  +{
> >  +	struct nfsd_file *fl;
> >  +
> >  +	spin_lock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
> >  +	fl = ls->ls_file;
> >  +	ls->ls_file = NULL;
> >  +	spin_unlock(&ls->ls_stid.sc_file->fi_lock);
> >  +
> >  +	if (fl) {
> >  +		if (!nfsd4_layout_ops[ls->ls_layout_type]->disable_recalls)
> > - 			vfs_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> > - 				     (void **)&ls);
> > ++			kernel_setlease(fl->nf_file, F_UNLCK, NULL,
> > ++					(void **)&ls);
> >  +		nfsd_file_put(fl);
> >  +	}
> >  +}
> >  +
> >   static void
> >   nfsd4_free_layout_stateid(struct nfs4_stid *stid)
> >   {
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>