RE: [PATCH v2 4/6] fs: Establish locking order for unrelated directories

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



...
> > > + * Lock any non-NULL argument. The caller must make sure that if he is passing
> > > + * in two directories, one is not ancestor of the other

Not directly relevant to this change but is the 'not an ancestor'
check actually robust?

I found a condition in which the kernel 'pwd' code (which follows
the inode chain) failed to stop at the base of a chroot.

I suspect that the ancestor check would fail the same way.

IIRC the problematic code used unshare() to 'escape' from
a network natespace.
If it was inside a chroot (that wasn't on a mount point) there
ware two copies of the 'chroot /' inode and the match failed.

I might be able to find the test case.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)




[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux