From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the vfs tree Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 12:35:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87lg9j8kkn.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20180620123905.348181b2@canb.auug.org.au> <20180806175047.5b612a77@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180806175047.5b612a77@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:50:47 +1000") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Al Viro , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:39:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Are there any comments on this resolution. I just had to do it all > again due to slight changes in the vfs tree. What are you guys going > to tell Linus when he comes to merge this? Currently that the fscontext changes have a gaping security hole in it's userspace API. Granted the security hole is copied from the existing mount api. But I have had multiple real world problems with the existing behavior, and I have reported it to David Howells multiple times. So I honestly don't think David Howells changes are ready to be merged. The changes to proc exhibit the security holet and I expect they will have to be redone to make the patch functional. Eric