Re: [PATCH RFC 0/1] mount: universally disallow mounting over symlinks

[Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:34:59AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2020-01-16, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar-gVpy/LI/lHzQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On 2020-01-15, Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:01:50AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Yes, there were two patches I sent a while ago[1]. I can re-send them if
> > > > you like. The second patch switches open_how->mode to a u64, but I'm
> > > > still on the fence about whether that makes sense to do...
> > > 
> > > IMO plain __u64 is better than games with __aligned_u64 - all sizes are
> > > fixed, so...
> > > 
> > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191219105533.12508-1-cyphar-gVpy/LI/lHzQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
> > > 
> > > Do you want that series folded into "open: introduce openat2(2) syscall"
> > > and "selftests: add openat2(2) selftests" or would you rather have them
> > > appended at the end of the series.  Personally I'd go for "fold them in"
> > > if it had been about my code, but it's really up to you.
> > 
> > "fold them in" would probably be better to avoid making the mainline
> > history confusing afterwards. Thanks.
> 
> Also (if you prefer) I can send a v3 which uses u64s rather than
> aligned_u64s.

<mode "lazy bastard">
Could you fold and resend the results of folding (i.e. replacements
for two commits in question)?
</mode>

The hard part is, of course, in updating commit messages ;-)