Re: [PATCH review 0/7] Bind mount escape fixes

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 01:22:41AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> In my last round of patches that I sent out today.  I did put mount_lock
> just outside of rename_lock, in d_splice_alias.  But apparently you
> haven't noticed.

I have.  The problem I have with that one is that you end up with duplicated
logics rather than taking it to one place.
 
> Now at this point I have hit the limit of my time available for rewrites
> before the merge window.  We can go with my 7 patch variant I posted
> today (whose only sin appears not to be your implemenation), it's
> trivial reduction that Linus likes because it is simple, someone else
> can write one, or this can all wait until the next development cycle.

... or either of us can do merging those checks into a single place,
be it as a followup to your 7-patch series, or folded with the
fs/dcache.c-affecting patches in there.  If you have no time left, I can
certainly do that followup myself - not a problem[1]

And umount-related followups are just that - I'm not asking you to do those,
especially since as I said this stuff is sensitive to fs_pin details (so far
it appears to fold nicely with the __detach_mounts()/umount_tree() stuff,
BTW).

[1] with credits for your patches preserved - normally I would assume that
this goes without saying, but your reply seems to imply that I'm playing some
kind of political BS games, so I'd rather spell that out.