linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat 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: <CAKYAXd_HNrckYs7R=ObghAovsA=o1ZynV3JwY0Czn2Bd_KGv1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:54:42 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Dongliang Cui <dongliang.cui@...soc.com>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, Yuezhang Mo <Yuezhang.Mo@...y.com>, 
	Zhiguo Niu <zhiguo.niu@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the exfat tree

2024년 8월 12일 (월) 오전 7:10, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>님이 작성:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/exfat/inode.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   3e491faa7648 ("exfat: do not fallback to buffered write")
>   98ad7b9012b5 ("exfat: Implement sops->shutdown and ioctl")
>
> from the exfat tree and commits:
>
>   a225800f322a ("fs: Convert aops->write_end to take a folio")
>   1da86618bdce ("fs: Convert aops->write_begin to take a folio")
>
> from the vfs-brauner 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.
Thanks for your work, Looks good to me:)
I'll send an exfat PR after making sure it doesn't conflict with these patches.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/exfat/inode.c
> index 7d43a0942911,05f0e07b01d0..000000000000
> --- a/fs/exfat/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/inode.c
> @@@ -428,11 -452,7 +428,10 @@@ static int exfat_write_begin(struct fil
>   {
>         int ret;
>
>  +      if (unlikely(exfat_forced_shutdown(mapping->host->i_sb)))
>  +              return -EIO;
>  +
> -       *pagep = NULL;
> -       ret = block_write_begin(mapping, pos, len, pagep, exfat_get_block);
> +       ret = block_write_begin(mapping, pos, len, foliop, exfat_get_block);
>
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 exfat_write_failed(mapping, pos+len);
> @@@ -448,7 -468,15 +447,7 @@@ static int exfat_write_end(struct file
>         struct exfat_inode_info *ei = EXFAT_I(inode);
>         int err;
>
> -       err = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied, pagep, fsdata);
> +       err = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied, folio, fsdata);
>  -
>  -      if (ei->i_size_aligned < i_size_read(inode)) {
>  -              exfat_fs_error(inode->i_sb,
>  -                      "invalid size(size(%llu) > aligned(%llu)\n",
>  -                      i_size_read(inode), ei->i_size_aligned);
>  -              return -EIO;
>  -      }
>  -
>         if (err < len)
>                 exfat_write_failed(mapping, pos+len);
>