linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH2r5muO9aTksvqD9v+sOQ2z-Xp3Rzbi9mPtfc0ad57jZG5aFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:38:00 -0600
From:   Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To:     broonie@...nel.org
Cc:     CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree

David,
This cifs fscache fix should be upstream soon, so you should be able
to update the fscache series ontop of updated kernel soon

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 6:43 AM <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/cifs/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   830c476f5eb82 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)")
>
> from the fscache tree and commit:
>
>   68f87ec9c1ce3 ("cifs: ignore resource_id while getting fscache super cookie")
>
> from the cifs 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/cifs/inode.c
> index dc2fe76450b96,279622e4eb1c2..0000000000000
> --- a/fs/cifs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/inode.c
> @@@ -1372,20 -1370,6 +1367,7 @@@ iget_no_retry
>                 iget_failed(inode);
>                 inode = ERR_PTR(rc);
>         }
>  +
> -       if (!rc) {
> -               /*
> -                * The cookie is initialized from volume info returned above.
> -                * Inside cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie it checks
> -                * that we do not get super cookie twice.
> -                */
> -               rc = cifs_fscache_get_super_cookie(tcon);
> -               if (rc < 0) {
> -                       iget_failed(inode);
> -                       inode = ERR_PTR(rc);
> -               }
> -       }
> -
>   out:
>         kfree(path);
>         free_xid(xid);



-- 
Thanks,

Steve