linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the erofs tree with the vfs-idmapping 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230420-umfragen-sandige-68c01f9ace00@brauner>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:36:15 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the erofs tree with the
 vfs-idmapping tree

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 04:49:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 03:46:51PM +0100, broonie@...nel.org wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> No, that's wrong.  This:

Yes, that fixup looks correct, thank you! 

> 
> diff --cc fs/erofs/xattr.c
> index 015462763bdd5,a04724c816e5f..0000000000000
> --- a/fs/erofs/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/xattr.c
> @@@ -483,12 -517,28 +513,25 @@@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct xattr
>   {
>   	struct listxattr_iter *it =
>   		container_of(_it, struct listxattr_iter, it);
> - 	unsigned int prefix_len;
> - 	const char *prefix;
> + 	unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
> + 	unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
> + 	const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
>  -	const struct xattr_handler *h;
> + 
> + 	if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
> + 		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(_it->sb);
> + 		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
> + 			(entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
> + 
> + 		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
> + 			return 1;
> + 		infix = pf->prefix->infix;
> + 		infix_len = pf->infix_len;
> + 		base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
> + 	}
>   
> - 	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(entry->e_name_index, it->dentry);
>  -	h = erofs_xattr_handler(base_index);
>  -	if (!h || (h->list && !h->list(it->dentry)))
> ++	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(base_index, it->dentry);
>  +	if (!prefix)
>   		return 1;
>  -
>  -	prefix = xattr_prefix(h);
>   	prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
>   
>   	if (!it->buffer) {