On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> 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 have done so.
