From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932465AbcERQi7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 12:38:59 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:53597 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753453AbcERQi4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 12:38:56 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Seth Forshee Cc: Alexander Viro , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Serge Hallyn , Richard Weinberger , Austin S Hemmelgarn , Miklos Szeredi , Pavel Tikhomirov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, cgroups@vger.kernel.org References: <1461699046-30485-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <1461699046-30485-4-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <87shxgxqai.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20160517235834.GA104031@ubuntu-hedt> <8760ubs738.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20160518161618.GC129218@ubuntu-hedt> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:27:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160518161618.GC129218@ubuntu-hedt> (Seth Forshee's message of "Wed, 18 May 2016 11:16:18 -0500") Message-ID: <87bn43qqlb.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX195X3AeqjgeDlh5D/sbVXmllx8uptxJXns= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.107.188 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4944] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Seth Forshee X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 5034 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.8 (0.1%), b_tie_ro: 2.7 (0.1%), parse: 1.02 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 24 (0.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.8 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 7 (0.1%), tests_pri_-950: 1.92 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.61 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 39 (0.8%), check_bayes: 37 (0.7%), b_tokenize: 14 (0.3%), b_tok_get_all: 11 (0.2%), b_comp_prob: 4.2 (0.1%), b_tok_touch_all: 4.5 (0.1%), b_finish: 0.89 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 4946 (98.2%), check_dkim_signature: 0.75 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 4011 (79.7%), tests_pri_500: 4.8 (0.1%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/21] fs: Allow sysfs and cgroupfs to share super blocks between user namespaces X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Seth Forshee writes: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:45:31AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > But if we do that it violates some of the assumptions of the patch to >> > rework MNT_NODEV on your testing branch (and also those behind patch 2 >> > in this series). Something will need to be changed there to prevent a >> > regression in mount behavior when a user ns tries to mount without >> > MNT_NODEV when the mount inherited from its parent has it set. >> >> Thank you for pointing that out. I will look into that. >> >> I believe I know exactly what you are talking about. Of the choices I >> think it is better to a minor localized change in the fs_fully_visible >> logic than it is to cause problems elsewhere. > > Agreed. > >> >> Apologies for not catching this earlier. >> > >> > Actually this is a more recent patch, so you possibly hadn't seen it >> > before. >> > >> >> I am looking at folding all of this into the patch that introduces >> >> sget_userns so that even bisects won't have regresssions. >> > >> > That's fine with me. >> >> And thank you for keeping everything as separate patches. That is at >> least helping me catch up. Even if I don't agree that these things >> should be separate come merge time. > > Honestly I probably would have squashed some of them into that first > patch myself if you hadn't already applied it to your testing branch, so > that's all just luck. > > Keep in mind that I also have that patch for mqueue that isn't in this > series, and I haven't yet checked to see if the 4.7 merges introduce > anything which is going to require updating these patches. I was > planning to wait and send out updates after -rc1, but if you want that > stuff sooner just let me know. As unfortunately I don't have anything going into -rc1 I am working on this right now. Let me finish sorting out the sget_userns and mnt nodev mess and I will push something out and then we can compare notes. I think I have mqueue covered by other changes. As it is in the set of filesystems that should just use sget_userns. I am sorting through the nodev corner of this now. It should just be a day or two. Eric