Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20181031053355.GQ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
        <87a7mut9cm.fsf@xmission.com>
        <2f4a2d58-dc7b-3a8f-65aa-9db432ce0a1e@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 11 Nov 2018 20:07:20 -0600
In-Reply-To: <2f4a2d58-dc7b-3a8f-65aa-9db432ce0a1e@redhat.com> (Steven
        Whitehouse's message of "Sat, 10 Nov 2018 14:19:44 +0000")
Message-ID: <877ehjkq07.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [git pull] mount API series
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
>
> On 31/10/18 15:38, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> 	mount API series from David Howells.  Last cycle's objections
>>> had been of the "I'd do it differently" variety and with no such
>>> differently done variants having ever materialized over several
>>> cycles...
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> My objections fundamentally is that I can find real problems when I look
>> at the code.  Further the changes have not been incremental changes that
>> have evolved the code from one state to another but complete
>> replacements of code that make code review very difficult and bisection
>> completely inapplicable.
>>
>> I also object that this series completely fails to fix the worst but I
>> have ever seen in the mount API.  Whit no real intrest shown in working
>> to fix it.
>>
>> A couple of bugs that I can see quickly.  Several of which I have
>> previously reported:
>>
>> - There is an easily triggered NULL pointer deference with open_tree
>>    and mount propagation.
>>
>>
> Can you share some details of what this NULL dereference is? David and
> Al have been working on the changes as requested by Linus later in
> this thread, and they'd like to tidy up this issue too at the same
> time if possible. We are not asking you to actually provide a fix, in
> case you are too busy to do so, however it would be good to know what
> the issue is so that we can make sure that it is resolved in the next
> round of patches,

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87bm7n5k1r.fsf@xmission.com/

Eric