Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:43:22 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree |
| |
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.
| |