Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
