Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the overlayfs tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 10:19:29 +1100

Hi all,

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:23:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   176cfe865da6 ("ecryptfs: fix uid translation for setxattr on security.capability")
> 
> from the overlayfs tree and commit:
> 
>   c7c7a1a18af4 ("xattr: handle idmapped mounts")
> 
> from the pidfd tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
> 
> 
> diff --cc fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> index 58d0f7187997,55da9a91f51a..000000000000
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> @@@ -1024,11 -1043,10 +1045,12 @@@ ecryptfs_setxattr(struct dentry *dentry
>   		rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>   		goto out;
>   	}
>  -	rc = vfs_setxattr(&init_user_ns, lower_dentry, name, value, size,
>  -			  flags);
>  +	inode_lock(lower_inode);
> - 	rc = __vfs_setxattr_locked(lower_dentry, name, value, size, flags, NULL);
> ++	rc = __vfs_setxattr_locked(&init_user_ns, lower_dentry, name,
> ++				   value, size, flags, NULL);
>  +	inode_unlock(lower_inode);
>   	if (!rc && inode)
>  -		fsstack_copy_attr_all(inode, d_inode(lower_dentry));
>  +		fsstack_copy_attr_all(inode, lower_inode);
>   out:
>   	return rc;
>   }

This is now a conflict between the pidfd tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell