lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree
From
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/overlayfs/super.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup")
>>
>> from the overlayfs tree and commit:
>>
>> 5cf3e7fecb43 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()")
>>
>> from the vfs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I used the overlayfs version, since I don't know the
>> locking consequences of teh change from lookup_one_len() to lookup_hash())
>> 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.
>
> Should use lookup_one_len_unlocked(), actually. lookup_hash() is
> a microoptimization, losing a lot more on excessive i_mutex contention.
> Either variant works, though.

No, here it's not an optimization:

"More specifically using lookup_one_len() causes a problem when the lower
directory lacks search permission for a specific user while the upper
directory does have search permission. Since lookups are cached, this
causes inconsistency in behavior: success depends on who did the first
lookup."

Thanks,
Miklos

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-02 10:41    [W:0.039 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site