Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
include/uapi/linux/fs.h
between commit:
1d91ca426d8d ("Partially revert "locks: fix file locking on overlayfs"")
from the overlayfs tree and commit:
28514d1edad4 ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
from the vfs tree.
I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree version of the file and added the
following merge fix patch) 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.
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:16:12 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] overlayfs: fix up for MS_ constants moving
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
include/uapi/linux/mount.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mount.h b/include/uapi/linux/mount.h
index 3634e065836c..fb104836a51f 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/mount.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/mount.h
@@ -37,7 +37,6 @@
/* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */
#define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26)
-#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27)
#define MS_NOSEC (1<<28)
#define MS_BORN (1<<29)
#define MS_ACTIVE (1<<30)
--
2.17.1
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */
> #define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26)
> -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27)
> #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28)
> #define MS_BORN (1<<29)
> #define MS_ACTIVE (1<<30)
Ummm... Can MS_NOREMOTELOCK be removed? I know it's listed in the internal
flags section, but all of these have been exposed to userspace for over a
year. Ideally, I'd remove all of these from UAPI, but can anyone guarantee
that no pieces of userspace refer to them?
David
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM, David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */
>> #define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26)
>> -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27)
>> #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28)
>> #define MS_BORN (1<<29)
>> #define MS_ACTIVE (1<<30)
>
> Ummm... Can MS_NOREMOTELOCK be removed? I know it's listed in the internal
> flags section, but all of these have been exposed to userspace for over a
> year. Ideally, I'd remove all of these from UAPI, but can anyone guarantee
> that no pieces of userspace refer to them?
The number of potential users of these flags is pretty low, so I think
we can try and remove them and hope nothing breaks.
Probably best left after the dust settles.
Thanks,
Miklos