From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in 5.3 for some FS_USERNS_MOUNT (aka user-namespace-mountable) filesystems
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:22:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190726232220.GM1131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgK254RkZg9oAv+Wt4V9zqYJMm3msTofvTUfA9dJw6piQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Of course, then later on, commit 20284ab7427f ("switch mount_capable()
> to fs_context") drops that argument entirely, and hardcodes the
> decision to look at fc->global.
>
> But that fc->global decision wasn't there originally, and is incorrect
> since it breaks existing users.
>
> What gets much more confusing about this is that the two different
> users then moved around. The sget_userns() case got moved to
> legacy_get_tree(), and then joined together in vfs_get_tree(), and
> then split and moved out to do_new_mount() and vfs_fsconfig_locked().
>
> And that "joined together into vfs_get_tree()" must be wrong, because
> the two cases used two different namespace rules. The sget_userns()
> case *did* have that "global" flag check, while the sget_fc() did not.
>
> Messy. Al?
Digging through that mess... It's my fuckup, and we obviously need to
restore the old behaviour, but I really hope to manage that with
checks _not_ in superblock allocator ;-/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-26 23:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-26 11:59 Regression in 5.3 for some FS_USERNS_MOUNT (aka user-namespace-mountable) filesystems Christian Brauner
2019-07-26 22:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-07-26 23:22 ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-07-27 0:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-27 2:28 ` Al Viro
2019-07-27 11:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-27 12:37 ` Al Viro
2019-07-27 13:17 ` Al Viro
2019-07-27 2:23 ` Al Viro
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=20190726232220.GM1131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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).