linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:

In file included from init/do_mounts.c:9:
include/linux/security.h: In function 'security_bprm_repopulate_creds':
include/linux/security.h:580:9: error: implicit declaration of function 
'cap_bprm_repopluate_creds'; did you mean 'cap_bprm_repopulate_creds'? 
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  580 |  return cap_bprm_repopluate_creds(bprm);
  | ^
  | cap_bprm_repopulate_creds

Caused by commit

  d9d67b76eed6 ("exec: Convert security_bprm_set_creds into 
security_bprm_repopulate_creds")

I have used the userns tree from next-20200519 for today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpjlfT6OtD8a.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
>
> In file included from include/linux/sched.h:16:0,
>  from arch/powerpc/lib/xor_vmx_glue.c:14:
> include/linux/shm.h:17:35: error: 'struct file' declared inside parameter 
> list will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration [-Werror]
>  bool is_file_shm_hugepages(struct file *file);
>^~~~
>
> and many, many more (most warnings, but some errors - arch/powerpc is
> mostly built with -Werror)
>
> Maybe caused by commit
>
>   1a5c1349d105 ("sem: Move struct sem and struct sem_array into ipc/sem.c")
>
> I have appplied the following fix patch for today:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell 
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:36:27 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] fix up for struct file no longer being available in shm.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 

Applied.  With the addition of:

> I dug through this and I discovered that the error was caused by the
> removal of struct shmid_kernel from shm.h when building on powerpc.
> Except for observing the existence of "struct file *shm_file" in
> struct shmid_kernel I have no clue why the structure move would
> cause such a failure.  I suspect shm.h always needed the forward
> declaration and someting had been confusing gcc into not issuing the
> warning. --EWB
> 
> Fixes: a2e102cd3cdd ("shm: Move struct shmid_kernel into ipc/shm.c")

Has anyone ever seen anything like that?

Eric

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
>
> In file included from include/linux/sched.h:16:0,
>  from arch/powerpc/lib/xor_vmx_glue.c:14:
> include/linux/shm.h:17:35: error: 'struct file' declared inside parameter 
> list will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration [-Werror]
>  bool is_file_shm_hugepages(struct file *file);
>^~~~
>
> and many, many more (most warnings, but some errors - arch/powerpc is
> mostly built with -Werror)
>
> Maybe caused by commit
>
>   1a5c1349d105 ("sem: Move struct sem and struct sem_array into ipc/sem.c")
>
> I have appplied the following fix patch for today:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell 
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:36:27 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] fix up for struct file no longer being available in shm.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 

Applied.  With the addition of:

> I dug through this and I discovered that the error was caused by the
> removal of struct shmid_kernel from shm.h when building on powerpc.
> Except for observing the existence of "struct file *shm_file" in
> struct shmid_kernel I have no clue why the structure move would
> cause such a failure.  I suspect shm.h always needed the forward
> declaration and someting had been confusing gcc into not issuing the
> warning. --EWB
> 
> Fixes: a2e102cd3cdd ("shm: Move struct shmid_kernel into ipc/shm.c")

Has anyone ever seen anything like that?

Eric

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:

In file included from include/linux/sched.h:16:0,
 from arch/powerpc/lib/xor_vmx_glue.c:14:
include/linux/shm.h:17:35: error: 'struct file' declared inside parameter list 
will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration [-Werror]
 bool is_file_shm_hugepages(struct file *file);
   ^~~~

and many, many more (most warnings, but some errors - arch/powerpc is
mostly built with -Werror)

Maybe caused by commit

  1a5c1349d105 ("sem: Move struct sem and struct sem_array into ipc/sem.c")

I have appplied the following fix patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:36:27 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] fix up for struct file no longer being available in shm.h

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 include/linux/shm.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/shm.h b/include/linux/shm.h
index 3a8eae3ca33c..d8e69aed3d32 100644
--- a/include/linux/shm.h
+++ b/include/linux/shm.h
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+struct file;
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSVIPC
 struct sysv_shm {
struct list_head shm_clist;
-- 
2.16.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpBwrw6Z1_zE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:

In file included from include/linux/sched.h:16:0,
 from arch/powerpc/lib/xor_vmx_glue.c:14:
include/linux/shm.h:17:35: error: 'struct file' declared inside parameter list 
will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration [-Werror]
 bool is_file_shm_hugepages(struct file *file);
   ^~~~

and many, many more (most warnings, but some errors - arch/powerpc is
mostly built with -Werror)

Maybe caused by commit

  1a5c1349d105 ("sem: Move struct sem and struct sem_array into ipc/sem.c")

I have appplied the following fix patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:36:27 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] fix up for struct file no longer being available in shm.h

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 include/linux/shm.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/shm.h b/include/linux/shm.h
index 3a8eae3ca33c..d8e69aed3d32 100644
--- a/include/linux/shm.h
+++ b/include/linux/shm.h
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+struct file;
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSVIPC
 struct sysv_shm {
struct list_head shm_clist;
-- 
2.16.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


pgpBwrw6Z1_zE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> allyesconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c: In function 'machine_process_ue_event':
> arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:276:5: error: too many arguments to function 
> 'memory_failure'
>  memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
>  ^~
> In file included from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:7:0,
>  from include/linux/ptrace.h:10,
>  from arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:27:
> include/linux/mm.h:2571:12: note: declared here
>  extern int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags);
> ^~
>
> Caused by commit
>
>   83b57531c58f ("mm/memory_failure: Remove unused trapno from memory_failure")
>
> I have added the following patch for today:

Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" 

The patch below is correct, and it really makes me appreciate my removal
of unused trapno parameter.  

Thank you for catching that.

Eric


> From: Stephen Rothwell 
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:54:39 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/memory_failure: update powerpc for memory_failure() API 
> change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
> index d2fecaec4fec..efdd16a79075 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void machine_process_ue_event(struct work_struct 
> *work)
>  
>   pfn = evt->u.ue_error.physical_address >>
>   PAGE_SHIFT;
> - memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
> + memory_failure(pfn, 0);
>   } else
>   pr_warn("Failed to identify bad address from "
>   "where the uncorrectable error (UE) "
> -- 
> 2.15.1

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> allyesconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c: In function 'machine_process_ue_event':
> arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:276:5: error: too many arguments to function 
> 'memory_failure'
>  memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
>  ^~
> In file included from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:7:0,
>  from include/linux/ptrace.h:10,
>  from arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:27:
> include/linux/mm.h:2571:12: note: declared here
>  extern int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags);
> ^~
>
> Caused by commit
>
>   83b57531c58f ("mm/memory_failure: Remove unused trapno from memory_failure")
>
> I have added the following patch for today:

Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" 

The patch below is correct, and it really makes me appreciate my removal
of unused trapno parameter.  

Thank you for catching that.

Eric


> From: Stephen Rothwell 
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:54:39 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/memory_failure: update powerpc for memory_failure() API 
> change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
> index d2fecaec4fec..efdd16a79075 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void machine_process_ue_event(struct work_struct 
> *work)
>  
>   pfn = evt->u.ue_error.physical_address >>
>   PAGE_SHIFT;
> - memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
> + memory_failure(pfn, 0);
>   } else
>   pr_warn("Failed to identify bad address from "
>   "where the uncorrectable error (UE) "
> -- 
> 2.15.1

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
allyesconfig) failed like this:

arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c: In function 'machine_process_ue_event':
arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:276:5: error: too many arguments to function 
'memory_failure'
 memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
 ^~
In file included from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:7:0,
 from include/linux/ptrace.h:10,
 from arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:27:
include/linux/mm.h:2571:12: note: declared here
 extern int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags);
^~

Caused by commit

  83b57531c58f ("mm/memory_failure: Remove unused trapno from memory_failure")

I have added the following patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:54:39 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] mm/memory_failure: update powerpc for memory_failure() API 
change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
index d2fecaec4fec..efdd16a79075 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void machine_process_ue_event(struct work_struct 
*work)
 
pfn = evt->u.ue_error.physical_address >>
PAGE_SHIFT;
-   memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
+   memory_failure(pfn, 0);
} else
pr_warn("Failed to identify bad address from "
"where the uncorrectable error (UE) "
-- 
2.15.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
allyesconfig) failed like this:

arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c: In function 'machine_process_ue_event':
arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:276:5: error: too many arguments to function 
'memory_failure'
 memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
 ^~
In file included from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:7:0,
 from include/linux/ptrace.h:10,
 from arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:27:
include/linux/mm.h:2571:12: note: declared here
 extern int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags);
^~

Caused by commit

  83b57531c58f ("mm/memory_failure: Remove unused trapno from memory_failure")

I have added the following patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:54:39 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] mm/memory_failure: update powerpc for memory_failure() API 
change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
index d2fecaec4fec..efdd16a79075 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void machine_process_ue_event(struct work_struct 
*work)
 
pfn = evt->u.ue_error.physical_address >>
PAGE_SHIFT;
-   memory_failure(pfn, SIGBUS, 0);
+   memory_failure(pfn, 0);
} else
pr_warn("Failed to identify bad address from "
"where the uncorrectable error (UE) "
-- 
2.15.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/pid_namespace.c: In function 'create_pid_namespace':
> kernel/pid_namespace.c:105:7: error: too many arguments to function 
> 'in_userns'
>   if (!in_userns(parent_pid_ns->user_ns, user_ns))
>^
> In file included from kernel/pid_namespace.c:13:0:
> include/linux/user_namespace.h:148:20: note: declared here
>  static inline bool in_userns(const struct user_namespace *target_ns)
> ^
>
> Caused by commit
>
>   1f1b28d80cd9 ("userns,pidns: Verify the userns for new pid namespaces")
>
> I have used the userns tree from next-20170719 for today.

*scratches my head*

Yes.  That isn't a powerpc specific bug.

This has been in my for-testing branch forever.  I thought this had
received plenty of build testing but apparently not.

I will get this sorted out.

Thank you very much.

Eric

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/pid_namespace.c: In function 'create_pid_namespace':
> kernel/pid_namespace.c:105:7: error: too many arguments to function 
> 'in_userns'
>   if (!in_userns(parent_pid_ns->user_ns, user_ns))
>^
> In file included from kernel/pid_namespace.c:13:0:
> include/linux/user_namespace.h:148:20: note: declared here
>  static inline bool in_userns(const struct user_namespace *target_ns)
> ^
>
> Caused by commit
>
>   1f1b28d80cd9 ("userns,pidns: Verify the userns for new pid namespaces")
>
> I have used the userns tree from next-20170719 for today.

*scratches my head*

Yes.  That isn't a powerpc specific bug.

This has been in my for-testing branch forever.  I thought this had
received plenty of build testing but apparently not.

I will get this sorted out.

Thank you very much.

Eric

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

kernel/pid_namespace.c: In function 'create_pid_namespace':
kernel/pid_namespace.c:105:7: error: too many arguments to function 'in_userns'
  if (!in_userns(parent_pid_ns->user_ns, user_ns))
   ^
In file included from kernel/pid_namespace.c:13:0:
include/linux/user_namespace.h:148:20: note: declared here
 static inline bool in_userns(const struct user_namespace *target_ns)
^

Caused by commit

  1f1b28d80cd9 ("userns,pidns: Verify the userns for new pid namespaces")

I have used the userns tree from next-20170719 for today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

kernel/pid_namespace.c: In function 'create_pid_namespace':
kernel/pid_namespace.c:105:7: error: too many arguments to function 'in_userns'
  if (!in_userns(parent_pid_ns->user_ns, user_ns))
   ^
In file included from kernel/pid_namespace.c:13:0:
include/linux/user_namespace.h:148:20: note: declared here
 static inline bool in_userns(const struct user_namespace *target_ns)
^

Caused by commit

  1f1b28d80cd9 ("userns,pidns: Verify the userns for new pid namespaces")

I have used the userns tree from next-20170719 for today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allnoconfig)
failed like this:

In file included from include/linux/kobject.h:21:0,
 from include/linux/device.h:17,
 from arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h:27,
 from arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc32.h:9,
 from arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable.h:19,
 from include/linux/mm.h:53,
 from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:6,
 from include/linux/ptrace.h:8,
 from arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c:24:
include/linux/sysfs.h: In function 'sysfs_remove_mount_point':
include/linux/sysfs.h:314:2: error: 'return' with a value, in function 
returning void [-Werror]
  return 0;
  ^

and many more :-(

Caused by commit f7e299595408 ("sysfs: Add support for permanently
empty directories to serve as mount points.").

I have added the following fix patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 20:20:44 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] sysfs: void functions do not return values

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 include/linux/sysfs.h | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sysfs.h b/include/linux/sysfs.h
index 3e7e41acc451..9f65758311a4 100644
--- a/include/linux/sysfs.h
+++ b/include/linux/sysfs.h
@@ -311,7 +311,6 @@ static inline int sysfs_create_mount_point(struct kobject 
*parent_kobj,
 static inline void sysfs_remove_mount_point(struct kobject *parent_kobj,
const char *name)
 {
-   return 0;
 }
 
 static inline int sysfs_create_file_ns(struct kobject *kobj,
-- 
2.1.4

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpNesT00X3O_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allnoconfig)
failed like this:

In file included from include/linux/kobject.h:21:0,
 from include/linux/device.h:17,
 from arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h:27,
 from arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc32.h:9,
 from arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable.h:19,
 from include/linux/mm.h:53,
 from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:6,
 from include/linux/ptrace.h:8,
 from arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c:24:
include/linux/sysfs.h: In function 'sysfs_remove_mount_point':
include/linux/sysfs.h:314:2: error: 'return' with a value, in function 
returning void [-Werror]
  return 0;
  ^

and many more :-(

Caused by commit f7e299595408 (sysfs: Add support for permanently
empty directories to serve as mount points.).

I have added the following fix patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 20:20:44 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] sysfs: void functions do not return values

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
---
 include/linux/sysfs.h | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sysfs.h b/include/linux/sysfs.h
index 3e7e41acc451..9f65758311a4 100644
--- a/include/linux/sysfs.h
+++ b/include/linux/sysfs.h
@@ -311,7 +311,6 @@ static inline int sysfs_create_mount_point(struct kobject 
*parent_kobj,
 static inline void sysfs_remove_mount_point(struct kobject *parent_kobj,
const char *name)
 {
-   return 0;
 }
 
 static inline int sysfs_create_file_ns(struct kobject *kobj,
-- 
2.1.4

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpNesT00X3O_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:18:44 -0700 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) 
wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell  writes:
> 
> > After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > fs/namespace.c: In function 'new_mountpoint':
> > fs/namespace.c:725:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'hash' 
> > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
> >  ^
> > fs/namespace.c:725:28: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer 
> > type [enabled by default]
> >   struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
> > ^
> > fs/namespace.c:741:2: warning: passing argument 2 of 'hlist_add_head' from 
> > incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> >   hlist_add_head(>m_hash, chain);
> >   ^
> > In file included from include/linux/signal.h:4:0,
> >  from include/linux/syscalls.h:72,
> >  from fs/namespace.c:11:
> > include/linux/list.h:637:20: note: expected 'struct hlist_head *' but 
> > argument is of type 'struct list_head *'
> >  static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head 
> > *h)
> > ^
> >
> > So clearly my merge conflict resolution was not sufficient.
> >
> > I will just drop the userns tree for today.  Please give me some help
> > with the resolutions - or fix this stuff up yourselves.
> 
> You had this exact conflict succesfully resolved yesterday.  Sigh.
> 
> Line 725 of fs/namespace.c: Simply need to read.
>   struct hlist_head *chain = mp_hash(dentry);

Yes, sorry about that - fixed for today (hopefully).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpFVTeqE_Z6J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:18:44 -0700 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) 
wrote:

 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au writes:
 
  After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
  ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
 
  fs/namespace.c: In function 'new_mountpoint':
  fs/namespace.c:725:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'hash' 
  [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
   ^
  fs/namespace.c:725:28: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer 
  type [enabled by default]
struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
  ^
  fs/namespace.c:741:2: warning: passing argument 2 of 'hlist_add_head' from 
  incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
hlist_add_head(mp-m_hash, chain);
^
  In file included from include/linux/signal.h:4:0,
   from include/linux/syscalls.h:72,
   from fs/namespace.c:11:
  include/linux/list.h:637:20: note: expected 'struct hlist_head *' but 
  argument is of type 'struct list_head *'
   static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head 
  *h)
  ^
 
  So clearly my merge conflict resolution was not sufficient.
 
  I will just drop the userns tree for today.  Please give me some help
  with the resolutions - or fix this stuff up yourselves.
 
 You had this exact conflict succesfully resolved yesterday.  Sigh.
 
 Line 725 of fs/namespace.c: Simply need to read.
   struct hlist_head *chain = mp_hash(dentry);

Yes, sorry about that - fixed for today (hopefully).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpFVTeqE_Z6J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/namespace.c: In function 'new_mountpoint':
> fs/namespace.c:725:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'hash' 
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
>  ^
> fs/namespace.c:725:28: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type 
> [enabled by default]
>   struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
> ^
> fs/namespace.c:741:2: warning: passing argument 2 of 'hlist_add_head' from 
> incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
>   hlist_add_head(>m_hash, chain);
>   ^
> In file included from include/linux/signal.h:4:0,
>  from include/linux/syscalls.h:72,
>  from fs/namespace.c:11:
> include/linux/list.h:637:20: note: expected 'struct hlist_head *' but 
> argument is of type 'struct list_head *'
>  static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head *h)
> ^
>
> So clearly my merge conflict resolution was not sufficient.
>
> I will just drop the userns tree for today.  Please give me some help
> with the resolutions - or fix this stuff up yourselves.

You had this exact conflict succesfully resolved yesterday.  Sigh.

Line 725 of fs/namespace.c: Simply need to read.
struct hlist_head *chain = mp_hash(dentry);

Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au writes:

 Hi Eric,

 After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
 ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

 fs/namespace.c: In function 'new_mountpoint':
 fs/namespace.c:725:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'hash' 
 [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
  ^
 fs/namespace.c:725:28: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type 
 [enabled by default]
   struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
 ^
 fs/namespace.c:741:2: warning: passing argument 2 of 'hlist_add_head' from 
 incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
   hlist_add_head(mp-m_hash, chain);
   ^
 In file included from include/linux/signal.h:4:0,
  from include/linux/syscalls.h:72,
  from fs/namespace.c:11:
 include/linux/list.h:637:20: note: expected 'struct hlist_head *' but 
 argument is of type 'struct list_head *'
  static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head *h)
 ^

 So clearly my merge conflict resolution was not sufficient.

 I will just drop the userns tree for today.  Please give me some help
 with the resolutions - or fix this stuff up yourselves.

You had this exact conflict succesfully resolved yesterday.  Sigh.

Line 725 of fs/namespace.c: Simply need to read.
struct hlist_head *chain = mp_hash(dentry);

Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/namespace.c: In function 'new_mountpoint':
fs/namespace.c:725:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'hash' 
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
 ^
fs/namespace.c:725:28: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type 
[enabled by default]
  struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
^
fs/namespace.c:741:2: warning: passing argument 2 of 'hlist_add_head' from 
incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
  hlist_add_head(>m_hash, chain);
  ^
In file included from include/linux/signal.h:4:0,
 from include/linux/syscalls.h:72,
 from fs/namespace.c:11:
include/linux/list.h:637:20: note: expected 'struct hlist_head *' but argument 
is of type 'struct list_head *'
 static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head *h)
^

So clearly my merge conflict resolution was not sufficient.

I will just drop the userns tree for today.  Please give me some help
with the resolutions - or fix this stuff up yourselves.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpiWW3Cx4EzD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/namespace.c: In function 'new_mountpoint':
fs/namespace.c:725:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'hash' 
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
 ^
fs/namespace.c:725:28: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type 
[enabled by default]
  struct list_head *chain = mountpoint_hashtable + hash(NULL, dentry);
^
fs/namespace.c:741:2: warning: passing argument 2 of 'hlist_add_head' from 
incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
  hlist_add_head(mp-m_hash, chain);
  ^
In file included from include/linux/signal.h:4:0,
 from include/linux/syscalls.h:72,
 from fs/namespace.c:11:
include/linux/list.h:637:20: note: expected 'struct hlist_head *' but argument 
is of type 'struct list_head *'
 static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head *h)
^

So clearly my merge conflict resolution was not sufficient.

I will just drop the userns tree for today.  Please give me some help
with the resolutions - or fix this stuff up yourselves.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpiWW3Cx4EzD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:15:17 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) 
wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell  writes:
> 
> > After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > fs/namespace.c: In function 'detach_mounts':
> > fs/namespace.c:1340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > 'br_write_lock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   br_write_lock(_lock);
> >   ^
> > fs/namespace.c:1340:17: error: 'vfsmount_lock' undeclared (first use in 
> > this function)
> >   br_write_lock(_lock);
> >  ^
> > fs/namespace.c:1340:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only 
> > once for each function it appears in
> > fs/namespace.c:1345:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > 'br_write_unlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   br_write_unlock(_lock);
> >   ^
> >
> > Caused by the interaction between commit d7e58b8abc4f ("vfs: Add a
> > function to lazily unmount all mounts from any dentry. v3") from the
> > userns tree and commit 84550b9356af ("RCU'd vfsmounts") from the vfs tree.
> >
> > I don't know how to fix this up, so I have just dropped the userns tree
> > for today.  I only dropped that tree because it was the latter of the two
> > conflicting trees.
> 
> Yeah.  Al has somethng cooking where he renamed the lock.
> 
> It looks like this just needs the trivial change:
> s/br_write_lock(_lock)/lock_mount_hash()/
> s/br_write_unlock(_lock)/unlock_mount_hash()/
> 
> Certainly that is all it needed when I closely inspected an earlier
> version of Al's changes.  He changed the name of the lock and I just
> happen to be using it.  In this case I don't think any of the semantics
> have changed.

OK, I added that as a merge fixup patch today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpic92ZDCpos.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:15:17 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) 
wrote:

 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au writes:
 
  After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
  ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
 
  fs/namespace.c: In function 'detach_mounts':
  fs/namespace.c:1340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
  'br_write_lock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock);
^
  fs/namespace.c:1340:17: error: 'vfsmount_lock' undeclared (first use in 
  this function)
br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock);
   ^
  fs/namespace.c:1340:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only 
  once for each function it appears in
  fs/namespace.c:1345:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
  'br_write_unlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
br_write_unlock(vfsmount_lock);
^
 
  Caused by the interaction between commit d7e58b8abc4f (vfs: Add a
  function to lazily unmount all mounts from any dentry. v3) from the
  userns tree and commit 84550b9356af (RCU'd vfsmounts) from the vfs tree.
 
  I don't know how to fix this up, so I have just dropped the userns tree
  for today.  I only dropped that tree because it was the latter of the two
  conflicting trees.
 
 Yeah.  Al has somethng cooking where he renamed the lock.
 
 It looks like this just needs the trivial change:
 s/br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock)/lock_mount_hash()/
 s/br_write_unlock(vfsmount_lock)/unlock_mount_hash()/
 
 Certainly that is all it needed when I closely inspected an earlier
 version of Al's changes.  He changed the name of the lock and I just
 happen to be using it.  In this case I don't think any of the semantics
 have changed.

OK, I added that as a merge fixup patch today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpic92ZDCpos.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:50:42PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Al was watching the conversation so I assumed that no answer to that
> request was sufficient to take these patches in my tree.
>
> I fully intend to take responsibility for these patches and work through
> whatever issues they have, and I intend to send Linus my pull request.
> As such dropping the userns tree from linux-next seems inappropriate.
> 

It's not.  Really, if you do touch core code and do not get a maintainer
respone it surely does not mean you can merge it through your tree.

It usually either means this stuff is so bad that it's not even worth
responding to or that the maintainer and core revierers of the area
are busy.  In this case it's probably a combination of both.

> Eric
---end quoted text---
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:50:42PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
 Al was watching the conversation so I assumed that no answer to that
 request was sufficient to take these patches in my tree.

 I fully intend to take responsibility for these patches and work through
 whatever issues they have, and I intend to send Linus my pull request.
 As such dropping the userns tree from linux-next seems inappropriate.
 

It's not.  Really, if you do touch core code and do not get a maintainer
respone it surely does not mean you can merge it through your tree.

It usually either means this stuff is so bad that it's not even worth
responding to or that the maintainer and core revierers of the area
are busy.  In this case it's probably a combination of both.

 Eric
---end quoted text---
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell  writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/namespace.c: In function 'detach_mounts':
> fs/namespace.c:1340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
> 'br_write_lock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   br_write_lock(_lock);
>   ^
> fs/namespace.c:1340:17: error: 'vfsmount_lock' undeclared (first use in this 
> function)
>   br_write_lock(_lock);
>  ^
> fs/namespace.c:1340:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only 
> once for each function it appears in
> fs/namespace.c:1345:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
> 'br_write_unlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   br_write_unlock(_lock);
>   ^
>
> Caused by the interaction between commit d7e58b8abc4f ("vfs: Add a
> function to lazily unmount all mounts from any dentry. v3") from the
> userns tree and commit 84550b9356af ("RCU'd vfsmounts") from the vfs tree.
>
> I don't know how to fix this up, so I have just dropped the userns tree
> for today.  I only dropped that tree because it was the latter of the two
> conflicting trees.

Yeah.  Al has somethng cooking where he renamed the lock.

It looks like this just needs the trivial change:
s/br_write_lock(_lock)/lock_mount_hash()/
s/br_write_unlock(_lock)/unlock_mount_hash()/

Certainly that is all it needed when I closely inspected an earlier
version of Al's changes.  He changed the name of the lock and I just
happen to be using it.  In this case I don't think any of the semantics
have changed.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Christoph Hellwig  writes:

> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> 
>> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>> 
>> fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
>> fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
>>   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
>>   ^
>> 
>> Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
>> ("split __lookup_mnt() in two functions") from the vfs tree and
>> a3b4491433f2 ("vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
>> namespace") from the userns tree.
>
> Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup
> and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff.
>
> Please drop the tree for now.

This is ultimatley a pretty siginficant bug user namespace fix.  So the
code absolutely has business being in the user namespace tree.  The code
has been reviewed and people did not scream.  I asked if Al wanted to
take the patches and if not I would take them through my tree.

Al was watching the conversation so I assumed that no answer to that
request was sufficient to take these patches in my tree.

I fully intend to take responsibility for these patches and work through
whatever issues they have, and I intend to send Linus my pull request.
As such dropping the userns tree from linux-next seems inappropriate.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:27:32PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
> > fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
> >   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
> >   ^
> > 
> > Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
> > ("split __lookup_mnt() in two functions") from the vfs tree and
> > a3b4491433f2 ("vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
> > namespace") from the userns tree.
> 
> Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup
> and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff.
> 
> Please drop the tree for now.

I'll probably put some form of that stuff through the vfs.git - the idea
is sane, but I would really like to see Eric's answer to the question
I've asked about the checks he adds in the first commit in this series;
AFAICS, to make them non-racy one needs to change locking rules for mount(2).
As it is, we have namespace_sem held exclusive _and_ ->i_mutex of mountpoint
to be held for all places where we turn something into a mountpoint.  His code
appears to assume that we are actually using ->i_mutex on _parent_ instead;
either that, or these checks are deliberately racy.

I'm not saying that change of lock_mount(9) behaviour is out of question -
we could change these locking rules, but such change isn't there in that
series and it's not even discussed there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:27:32PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
  Hi Eric,
  
  After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
  ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
  
  fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
  fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry)  __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
^
  
  Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
  (split __lookup_mnt() in two functions) from the vfs tree and
  a3b4491433f2 (vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
  namespace) from the userns tree.
 
 Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup
 and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff.
 
 Please drop the tree for now.

I'll probably put some form of that stuff through the vfs.git - the idea
is sane, but I would really like to see Eric's answer to the question
I've asked about the checks he adds in the first commit in this series;
AFAICS, to make them non-racy one needs to change locking rules for mount(2).
As it is, we have namespace_sem held exclusive _and_ -i_mutex of mountpoint
to be held for all places where we turn something into a mountpoint.  His code
appears to assume that we are actually using -i_mutex on _parent_ instead;
either that, or these checks are deliberately racy.

I'm not saying that change of lock_mount(9) behaviour is out of question -
we could change these locking rules, but such change isn't there in that
series and it's not even discussed there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org writes:

 On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
 Hi Eric,
 
 After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
 ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
 
 fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
 fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry)  __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
   ^
 
 Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
 (split __lookup_mnt() in two functions) from the vfs tree and
 a3b4491433f2 (vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
 namespace) from the userns tree.

 Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup
 and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff.

 Please drop the tree for now.

This is ultimatley a pretty siginficant bug user namespace fix.  So the
code absolutely has business being in the user namespace tree.  The code
has been reviewed and people did not scream.  I asked if Al wanted to
take the patches and if not I would take them through my tree.

Al was watching the conversation so I assumed that no answer to that
request was sufficient to take these patches in my tree.

I fully intend to take responsibility for these patches and work through
whatever issues they have, and I intend to send Linus my pull request.
As such dropping the userns tree from linux-next seems inappropriate.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au writes:

 Hi Eric,

 After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
 ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

 fs/namespace.c: In function 'detach_mounts':
 fs/namespace.c:1340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
 'br_write_lock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock);
   ^
 fs/namespace.c:1340:17: error: 'vfsmount_lock' undeclared (first use in this 
 function)
   br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock);
  ^
 fs/namespace.c:1340:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only 
 once for each function it appears in
 fs/namespace.c:1345:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
 'br_write_unlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   br_write_unlock(vfsmount_lock);
   ^

 Caused by the interaction between commit d7e58b8abc4f (vfs: Add a
 function to lazily unmount all mounts from any dentry. v3) from the
 userns tree and commit 84550b9356af (RCU'd vfsmounts) from the vfs tree.

 I don't know how to fix this up, so I have just dropped the userns tree
 for today.  I only dropped that tree because it was the latter of the two
 conflicting trees.

Yeah.  Al has somethng cooking where he renamed the lock.

It looks like this just needs the trivial change:
s/br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock)/lock_mount_hash()/
s/br_write_unlock(vfsmount_lock)/unlock_mount_hash()/

Certainly that is all it needed when I closely inspected an earlier
version of Al's changes.  He changed the name of the lock and I just
happen to be using it.  In this case I don't think any of the semantics
have changed.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
> fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
>   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
>   ^
> 
> Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
> ("split __lookup_mnt() in two functions") from the vfs tree and
> a3b4491433f2 ("vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
> namespace") from the userns tree.

Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup
and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff.

Please drop the tree for now.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/namespace.c: In function 'detach_mounts':
fs/namespace.c:1340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'br_write_lock' 
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  br_write_lock(_lock);
  ^
fs/namespace.c:1340:17: error: 'vfsmount_lock' undeclared (first use in this 
function)
  br_write_lock(_lock);
 ^
fs/namespace.c:1340:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once 
for each function it appears in
fs/namespace.c:1345:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
'br_write_unlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  br_write_unlock(_lock);
  ^

Caused by the interaction between commit d7e58b8abc4f ("vfs: Add a
function to lazily unmount all mounts from any dentry. v3") from the
userns tree and commit 84550b9356af ("RCU'd vfsmounts") from the vfs tree.

I don't know how to fix this up, so I have just dropped the userns tree
for today.  I only dropped that tree because it was the latter of the two
conflicting trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpTEbQCVsU5H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
  is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
  ^

Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
("split __lookup_mnt() in two functions") from the vfs tree and
a3b4491433f2 ("vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
namespace") from the userns tree.

I added the following fix up patch:

From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:56:35 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] vfs: merge fixup for __lookup_mnt() API change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 fs/namei.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index 83463500c582..03d999bf9a89 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -3525,7 +3525,7 @@ static bool covered(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct dentry 
*dentry)
bool is_covered;
 
rcu_read_lock();
-   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
+   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry) && __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry);
rcu_read_unlock();
 
return is_covered;
-- 
1.8.4.2

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpU1oXLqCStx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
  is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry)  __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
  ^

Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
(split __lookup_mnt() in two functions) from the vfs tree and
a3b4491433f2 (vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
namespace) from the userns tree.

I added the following fix up patch:

From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:56:35 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] vfs: merge fixup for __lookup_mnt() API change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
---
 fs/namei.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index 83463500c582..03d999bf9a89 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -3525,7 +3525,7 @@ static bool covered(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct dentry 
*dentry)
bool is_covered;
 
rcu_read_lock();
-   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry)  __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
+   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry)  __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry);
rcu_read_unlock();
 
return is_covered;
-- 
1.8.4.2

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpU1oXLqCStx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/namespace.c: In function 'detach_mounts':
fs/namespace.c:1340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'br_write_lock' 
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock);
  ^
fs/namespace.c:1340:17: error: 'vfsmount_lock' undeclared (first use in this 
function)
  br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock);
 ^
fs/namespace.c:1340:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once 
for each function it appears in
fs/namespace.c:1345:2: error: implicit declaration of function 
'br_write_unlock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  br_write_unlock(vfsmount_lock);
  ^

Caused by the interaction between commit d7e58b8abc4f (vfs: Add a
function to lazily unmount all mounts from any dentry. v3) from the
userns tree and commit 84550b9356af (RCU'd vfsmounts) from the vfs tree.

I don't know how to fix this up, so I have just dropped the userns tree
for today.  I only dropped that tree because it was the latter of the two
conflicting trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpTEbQCVsU5H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
 Hi Eric,
 
 After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
 ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
 
 fs/namei.c: In function 'covered':
 fs/namei.c:3528:2: error: too many arguments to function '__lookup_mnt'
   is_covered = d_mountpoint(dentry)  __lookup_mnt(mnt, dentry, 1);
   ^
 
 Caused by my incomplete merge resolution between commits 474279dc0f77
 (split __lookup_mnt() in two functions) from the vfs tree and
 a3b4491433f2 (vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount
 namespace) from the userns tree.

Btw, I don't think the userns tree has any business touching lookup
and mount semantics in namei.c without an explicit VFS signoff.

Please drop the tree for now.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:

kernel/audit.c: In function 'audit_receive_msg':
kernel/audit.c:753:37: error: 'struct netlink_skb_parms' has no member named 
'pid'

I missed the conflict between commit 35ce9888ad2a ("audit: Properly set
the origin port id of audit messages") from the userns tree and commit
15e473046cb6 ("netlink: Rename pid to portid to avoid confusion") from
the net-next tree.  I have added the following merge fix patch and can
carry it as necessary.

From 55a9ee70146f37c559333b1f35154618c708203f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell 
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:05:38 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] audit: fix up for pid to portid change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell 
---
 kernel/audit.c |2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
index ea9b67a..4d0ceed 100644
--- a/kernel/audit.c
+++ b/kernel/audit.c
@@ -750,7 +750,7 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
nlmsghdr *nlh)
size--;
audit_log_n_untrustedstring(ab, data, size);
}
-   audit_set_pid(ab, NETLINK_CB(skb).pid);
+   audit_set_pid(ab, NETLINK_CB(skb).portid);
audit_log_end(ab);
}
break;
-- 
1.7.10.280.gaa39

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpvzrqDiXguG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

linux-next: build failure after merge of the userns tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Eric,

After merging the userns tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:

kernel/audit.c: In function 'audit_receive_msg':
kernel/audit.c:753:37: error: 'struct netlink_skb_parms' has no member named 
'pid'

I missed the conflict between commit 35ce9888ad2a (audit: Properly set
the origin port id of audit messages) from the userns tree and commit
15e473046cb6 (netlink: Rename pid to portid to avoid confusion) from
the net-next tree.  I have added the following merge fix patch and can
carry it as necessary.

From 55a9ee70146f37c559333b1f35154618c708203f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:05:38 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] audit: fix up for pid to portid change

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
---
 kernel/audit.c |2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
index ea9b67a..4d0ceed 100644
--- a/kernel/audit.c
+++ b/kernel/audit.c
@@ -750,7 +750,7 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
nlmsghdr *nlh)
size--;
audit_log_n_untrustedstring(ab, data, size);
}
-   audit_set_pid(ab, NETLINK_CB(skb).pid);
+   audit_set_pid(ab, NETLINK_CB(skb).portid);
audit_log_end(ab);
}
break;
-- 
1.7.10.280.gaa39

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au


pgpvzrqDiXguG.pgp
Description: PGP signature