From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871svqeivo.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170125160835.1b94db55@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:08:35 +1100")
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/proc/base.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")
>
> from the userns tree and commit:
>
> d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?
Sort of. After a long conversation it turns out what they are trying to
do is orthogonal.
The first (mine) is handling the case of non-dumpable tasks in user
namespaces.
The second by Aleksa Sarai is trying to trying to relax the permission
checks in proc so that non-dumpable is not as strict, to sort out some
runC issues where they are having challenges coding themselves into a
corner. In the case of /proc/self I think there may be a case but in
general relaxing the permission checks in proc gives me the Heebie
Jeebies.
Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't? Otherwise can
you remove it from your tree?
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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.
Stephen thank you for pointing this out.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-26 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-25 5:08 linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-26 0:59 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2017-01-26 1:43 ` Andrew Morton
2017-01-26 3:55 ` Stephen Rothwell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-12-21 11:07 Stephen Rothwell
2021-12-24 7:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-10-11 6:41 Stephen Rothwell
2021-10-11 14:03 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-09 7:57 Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-22 11:55 Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-12 10:53 Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-30 7:42 Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-30 9:48 ` Ian Kent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=871svqeivo.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=asarai@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).