From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:38885 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751322AbcCVXUe (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:20:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:19:47 +1100 (AEDT) From: James Morris To: Seth Forshee cc: Pavel Tikhomirov , Andy Lutomirski , "Eric W. Biederman" , devel@openvz.org, Serge Hallyn , Alexander Viro , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Konstantin Khorenko , Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: remove excess check for in_userns In-Reply-To: <20160315134545.GB27754@ubuntu-xps13> Message-ID: References: <1451930639-94331-4-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <1458043740-14229-1-git-send-email-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com> <20160315134545.GB27754@ubuntu-xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 03:09:00PM +0300, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote: > > If in_userns returns false mnt_may_suid also returns false, and we > > will reach second(removed) if-check only in case it does not trigger, > > so remove it. > > We had a somewhat lengthy discussion previously where one of the > conclusions was that we'd have that check in both places even though > it's redundant. Iirc the reason was that though they're doing the same > test they're doing so to answer different questions, so we should have > the test in both places (or something along those lines). A comment in the code might be useful here. -- James Morris