linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the djw-vfs 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: <20230803030800.GJ11377@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 20:08:00 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        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 block tree with the djw-vfs tree

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:28:30AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   880b9577855e ("fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze")
> 
> from the djw-vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   4a8b719f95c0 ("fs: remove emergency_thaw_bdev")
> 
> from the block 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/super.c
> index edc588bca7fc,bc666e7ee1a9..000000000000
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@@ -1029,8 -1029,10 +1029,10 @@@ static void do_thaw_all_callback(struc
>   {
>   	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
>   	if (sb->s_root && sb->s_flags & SB_BORN) {
> - 		emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
> + 		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLOCK))
> + 			while (sb->s_bdev && !thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev))
> + 				pr_warn("Emergency Thaw on %pg\n", sb->s_bdev);
>  -		thaw_super_locked(sb);
>  +		thaw_super_locked(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE);

Looks correct to me!  Thanks for the heads up.

--D

>   	} else {
>   		up_write(&sb->s_umount);
>   	}