[PATCH review 0/7] Bind mount escape fixes

Al Viro viro at ZenIV.linux.org.uk
Sun Aug 16 06:55:03 UTC 2015

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,

[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.

More information about the Containers mailing list