On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:45:34AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:39 AM Christian Brauner > <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:04:39AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:50 AM Christian Brauner > > > <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:40:50AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:46 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regression test to verify that creating a series of detached mounts, > > > > > > attaching them to the filesystem, and unmounting them does not trigger an > > > > > > integer overflow in ns->mounts causing the kernel to block any new mounts in > > > > > > count_mounts() and returning ENOSPC because it falsely assumes that the > > > > > > maximum number of mounts in the mount namespace has been reached, i.e. it > > > > > > thinks it can't fit the new mounts into the mount namespace anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > The test is written in a way that it will leave the host's mount > > > > > > namespace intact so we are sure to never make the host's mount namespace > > > > > > unuseable! > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/ee2e3f50629f17b0752b55b2566c15ce8dafb557 > > > > > > Cc: Eryu Guan <guan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > /* v1 - v8 */ > > > > > > patch not present > > > > > > > > > > > > /* v9 */ > > > > > > - Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > - Rebased on current master. > > > > > > > > > > > > /* v10 */ > > > > > > - Eryu Guan <guan@xxxxxxx>: > > > > > > - Add missing checks whether test is supported. > > > > > > - Move status=$? assignment up. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Technical nit: why did you add this extra --- line? > > > > > It causes all the patch changelog to appear in the commit message. > > > > > I don't think that was your intention? and I don't think it adds valuable > > > > > into to git log. > > > > > > > > I've not done that in any of the other patches or on any other patches I > > > > ever wrote so I think this was just a copy-paste error when I updated > > > > the changelog. > > > > > > > > > > Please note this glitch happened in all the patches in the series... > > > > Oh wait, actually looking at this again I think don't understand just > > yet. This is pretty common and when you apply the series git am will cut > > after the first > > --- > > > > And thinking about it so far I've never heard anyone complain about > > this. But likely I just misunderstand you and I really borked something. > > > > I see. The reason I brought this up is because I fetched your branch from > https://github.com/brauner/xfstests/ idmapped_mounts_v2 > and it has this changelog visible in git log. > > So I am not sure how that came to be. Oh now I understand you. That's intentional, non-final branches, i.e. versioned branches of mine or branches where I'm not the one applying the patches after pulling them via b4 still container the changelogs because I need to assume I'll cut new version from it and will amend the changelogs. This also ensures git format-patch will give retain the changelog. But the point is will taken. If I provide a branch to pull from I should strip the changelogs. This is what I done now. You can find this series (unchanged apart from the stripped changelog) here: always have the changelog recorded to https://github.com/brauner/xfstests/ idmapped_mounts similar for gitlab and kernel.org. Thanks for pointing that out! Christian
