linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the f2fs 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: <20231220013402.GW1674809@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 01:34:02 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	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 vfs tree with the f2fs tree

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:13:25AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:47:34 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/f2fs/namei.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   53edb549565f ("f2fs: fix to avoid dirent corruption")
> > 
> > from the f2fs tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7deee77b993a ("f2fs: Avoid reading renamed directory if parent does not change")
> > 
> > from the vfs 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.
> 
> Then I remembered to look at your suggested resolution and redid it
> like you did (see below).

My suggested resolution had been wrong, actually - the way it's written,
link count drop should be conditional on old_is_dir, cross-directory or
not.

I think the right solution is
	if (old_dir_entry)
		f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry, old_dir_page, new_dir);
        if (old_is_dir)
		f2fs_i_links_write(old_dir, false);