Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1566325 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-25 06:10 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-01-26 05:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-01-25 06:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) - 2017-01-26 02:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-01-26 02:50 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-01-26 05:00 +0100
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-25 06:10 +0100 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree |
| Message-ID | <t3o0h-5TO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
fs/proc/base.c
between commit:
68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")
from the userns tree and commit:
d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")
from the akpm-current tree.
I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?
I fixed it up (I just used the former) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-26 02:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree |
| Message-ID | <t3GJz-SE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1566325 |
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/proc/base.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")
>
> from the userns tree and commit:
>
> d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?
Sort of. After a long conversation it turns out what they are trying to
do is orthogonal.
The first (mine) is handling the case of non-dumpable tasks in user
namespaces.
The second by Aleksa Sarai is trying to trying to relax the permission
checks in proc so that non-dumpable is not as strict, to sort out some
runC issues where they are having challenges coding themselves into a
corner. In the case of /proc/self I think there may be a case but in
general relaxing the permission checks in proc gives me the Heebie
Jeebies.
Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't? Otherwise can
you remove it from your tree?
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.
Stephen thank you for pointing this out.
Eric
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-26 02:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree |
| Message-ID | <t3Hmh-16B-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1567058 |
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/proc/base.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")
> >
> > from the userns tree and commit:
> >
> > d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")
> >
> > from the akpm-current tree.
> >
> > I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?
>
> Sort of. After a long conversation it turns out what they are trying to
> do is orthogonal.
>
> The first (mine) is handling the case of non-dumpable tasks in user
> namespaces.
>
> The second by Aleksa Sarai is trying to trying to relax the permission
> checks in proc so that non-dumpable is not as strict, to sort out some
> runC issues where they are having challenges coding themselves into a
> corner. In the case of /proc/self I think there may be a case but in
> general relaxing the permission checks in proc gives me the Heebie
> Jeebies.
>
> Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't? Otherwise can
> you remove it from your tree?
I have done so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-26 05:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree |
| Message-ID | <t3Jo5-2nj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1567074 |
Hi Andrew, On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:43:22 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > > Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't? Otherwise can > > you remove it from your tree? > > I have done so. I'll drop it from linux-next on Monday (if there is no new mmotm by then). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web