From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH review 0/7] Bind mount escape fixes Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:55:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20150816065503.GL14139__13954.3832432993$1439708126$gmane$org@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <874mk08l3g.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87a8ts763c.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20150816021209.GI14139@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150816045322.GJ14139@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87fv3ju4zy.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fv3ju4zy.fsf-JOvCrm2gF+uungPnsOpG7nhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrey Vagin , Miklos Szeredi , Richard Weinberger , Linux Containers , Andy Lutomirski , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel , Jann Horn , Linus Torvalds , Willy Tarreau List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 01:22:41AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > In my last round of patches that I sent out today. I did put mount_lock > just outside of rename_lock, in d_splice_alias. But apparently you > haven't noticed. I have. The problem I have with that one is that you end up with duplicated logics rather than taking it to one place. > Now at this point I have hit the limit of my time available for rewrites > before the merge window. We can go with my 7 patch variant I posted > today (whose only sin appears not to be your implemenation), it's > trivial reduction that Linus likes because it is simple, someone else > can write one, or this can all wait until the next development cycle. ... or either of us can do merging those checks into a single place, be it as a followup to your 7-patch series, or folded with the fs/dcache.c-affecting patches in there. If you have no time left, I can certainly do that followup myself - not a problem[1] And umount-related followups are just that - I'm not asking you to do those, especially since as I said this stuff is sensitive to fs_pin details (so far it appears to fold nicely with the __detach_mounts()/umount_tree() stuff, BTW). [1] with credits for your patches preserved - normally I would assume that this goes without saying, but your reply seems to imply that I'm playing some kind of political BS games, so I'd rather spell that out.