...
> > > + * Lock any non-NULL argument. The caller must make sure that if he is
> > > passing
> > > + * in two directories, one is not ancestor of the other
Not directly relevant to this change but is the 'not an ancestor'
check actually robust?
I found a condition in which the kernel 'pwd' code (which follows
the inode chain) failed to stop at the base of a chroot.
I suspect that the ancestor check would fail the same way.
IIRC the problematic code used unshare() to 'escape' from
a network natespace.
If it was inside a chroot (that wasn't on a mount point) there
ware two copies of the 'chroot /' inode and the match failed.
I might be able to find the test case.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT,
UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
