From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:50:42 -0800 Message-ID: <87ob5uwlrx.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20131108175848.6ca49f0ee8fe2a6c1125394a@canb.auug.org.au> <20131108072732.GA27537@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:51426 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757570Ab3KHWvD (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:51:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131108072732.GA27537@infradead.org> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:27:32 -0800") Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Al Viro , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this: >> >> fs/namei.c: In function 'covered': >> fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt' >> is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1); >> ^ >> >> Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77 >> ("split __lookup_mnt() in two functions") from the vfs tree and >> a3b4491433f2 ("vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount >> namespace") from the userns tree. > > Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup > and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff. > > Please drop the tree for now. This is ultimatley a pretty siginficant bug user namespace fix. So the code absolutely has business being in the user namespace tree. The code has been reviewed and people did not scream. I asked if Al wanted to take the patches and if not I would take them through my tree. Al was watching the conversation so I assumed that no answer to that request was sufficient to take these patches in my tree. I fully intend to take responsibility for these patches and work through whatever issues they have, and I intend to send Linus my pull request. As such dropping the userns tree from linux-next seems inappropriate. Eric