linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs update for 6.8-rc1

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]

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:12:42 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs update for 6.8-rc1

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:05:51PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 10:28, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git tags/f2fs-for-6.8-rc1
> 
> Hmm. I got a somewhat confusing conflict in f2fs_rename().
> 
> And honestly, I really don't know what the right resolution is. What I
> ended up with was this:
> 
>         if (old_is_dir) {
>                 if (old_dir_entry)
>                         f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry,
>                                                 old_dir_page, new_dir);
>                 else
>                         f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0);

Where would you end up with old_dir_page != NULL and old_dir_entry == NULL?
old_dir_page is initialized to NULL and the only place where it's altered
is
                old_dir_entry = f2fs_parent_dir(old_inode, &old_dir_page);
Which is immediately followed by
                if (!old_dir_entry) {
                        if (IS_ERR(old_dir_page))
                                err = PTR_ERR(old_dir_page);
                        goto out_old;
                }
so we are *not* going to end up at that if (old_is_dir) in that case.

Original would have been more clear as
	if (old_is_dir) {
		if (old_dir != new_dir) {
			/* we have .. in old_dir_page/old_dir_entry */
			if (!whiteout)
	                        f2fs_set_link(old_inode, old_dir_entry,
                                                old_dir_page, new_dir);
			else
	                        f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0);
		}
                f2fs_i_links_write(old_dir, false);
	}
- it is equivalent to what that code used to do.  And "don't update ..
if we are leaving a whiteout behind" was teh bug fixed by commit
in f2fs tree...

The bottom line: your variant is not broken, but only because
f2fs_put_page() starts with
static inline void f2fs_put_page(struct page *page, int unlock)
{
        if (!page)
                return;

IOW, you are doing f2fs_put_page(NULL, 0), which is an explicit no-op.