From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] User namespace related fixes for v4.2 Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 00:11:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20150704231118.GT17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <87381eyz26.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87pp4eqktr.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: 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: Linus Torvalds Cc: Seth Forshee , Linux API , Linux Containers , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andy Lutomirski , Kenton Varda , Tejun Heo , "Eric W. Biederman" , Richard Weinberger , "" , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , Ivan Delalande List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 03:10:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: > > > > Can you live with the patch below and committing to never supporting > > executables on proc and sysfs? > > Sure. I don't think executables make any sense what-so-ever in those > filesystems. I think it's fine saying that /proc and /sys cannot have > executables in them, and then use that flag to just ignore the > relevant mount flags. > > Al, comments? I can live with that, but I would prefer that to be a superblock flag force-set in ->mount() (and preserved in ->remount_fs()) rather than Yet Another FS Type Flag. OTOH, it's not hard to change afterwards. Al, bloody annoyed by having spent hours debugging an odd corruption in merge candidate, only to find that it correlated to temperature of the host ;-/ Seem to be all gone after replacing CPU fan and cleaning the mess under it...