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: <9d837076-f666-c3c3-dd09-5c3705da23e6@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 22:36:21 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>,
        Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
        Alberto Ruiz <aruiz@...hat.com>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
        Chung-Chiang Cheng <cccheng@...ology.com>,
        Christian Kellner <ckellner@...hat.com>,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] fat: add renameat2 RENAME_EXCHANGE flag support

Hello OGAWA,

Thanks for your feedback.

On 6/9/22 21:17, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com> writes:
> 
>> +static void vfat_update_nlink(struct inode *dir, struct inode *inode)
>> +{
>> +		if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
>> +			drop_nlink(dir);
>> +		else
>> +			inc_nlink(dir);
>> +}
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +	vfat_update_dir_metadata(old_dir, &ts);
>> +	/* if directories are not the same, update new_dir as well */
>> +	if (old_dir != new_dir) {
>> +		vfat_update_dir_metadata(new_dir, &ts);
>> +		/* nlink only needs to be updated if the file types differ */
>> +		if (old_inode->i_mode != new_inode->i_mode) {
>> +			vfat_update_nlink(old_dir, old_inode);
>> +			vfat_update_nlink(new_dir, new_inode);
>> +		}
>> +	}
> 
> Looks like unnecessary complex (and comparing raw i_mode, not S_ISDIR(),
> better to change before make dir dirty).  How about this change, it is
> only tested slightly though? Can you review and test?
>

Your change looks good to me and indeed the logic is simpler than in mine.

I've also tested it and AFAICT it works correctly as well. Do you plan to
squash this or should I respin a new revision of the whole patch-set ? If
you want to post it as a follow-up I'm also OK with that.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ