linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ceph: correct ceph_mds_cap

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: <3039501f-f7b2-443b-a727-c53c41b41ed9@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:57:23 +0800
From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
To: Patrick Donnelly <batrick@...bytes.com>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc: Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@...hat.com>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ceph: correct ceph_mds_cap_item field name

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for your patches.

BTW, I think this should be the V2, right ?

Then could you explain what's the difference between V1 and V2 ?Usually 
we will add this in the cover-letter.

And also we will add a version tag from the second version of the patch 
series, which is something like:

   [PATCH v2 0/3]
   [PATCH v2 1/3]
   ...
   [PATCH v2 3/3]

At the same time please add a cover-letter if there are more than 1 
patch in the series, which will be the '[PATCH 0/3]', and you can 
generate it by using the '--cover-letter' option:

   $ git patch-format -3 --cover-letter

Please note that in the cover-letter patch you need to add the title, a 
summary about this series and certainly a comment about the changes from 
the last version manually. One example about this please see 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240418142019.133191-1-xiubli@redhat.com/.

If there is only one patch in the series, then the cover-letter is not a 
must and you can just do it likes: 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/ceph-devel/patch/20240314073915.844541-1-xiubli@redhat.com/,

Thanks

- Xiubo


On 10/13/24 09:16, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
> The issue_seq is sent with bulk cap releases, not the current sequence number.
>
> See also ceph.git commit: "include/ceph_fs: correct ceph_mds_cap_item field name".
>
> See-also: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/66704
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@...hat.com>
> ---
>   fs/ceph/mds_client.c         | 2 +-
>   include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h | 2 +-
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/mds_client.c b/fs/ceph/mds_client.c
> index c4a5fd94bbbb..0be82de8a6da 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/mds_client.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/mds_client.c
> @@ -2362,7 +2362,7 @@ static void ceph_send_cap_releases(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>   		item->ino = cpu_to_le64(cap->cap_ino);
>   		item->cap_id = cpu_to_le64(cap->cap_id);
>   		item->migrate_seq = cpu_to_le32(cap->mseq);
> -		item->seq = cpu_to_le32(cap->issue_seq);
> +		item->issue_seq = cpu_to_le32(cap->issue_seq);
>   		msg->front.iov_len += sizeof(*item);
>   
>   		ceph_put_cap(mdsc, cap);
> diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h b/include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h
> index ee1d0e5f9789..4ff3ad5e9210 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h
> @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ struct ceph_mds_cap_release {
>   struct ceph_mds_cap_item {
>   	__le64 ino;
>   	__le64 cap_id;
> -	__le32 migrate_seq, seq;
> +	__le32 migrate_seq, issue_seq;
>   } __attribute__ ((packed));
>   
>   #define CEPH_MDS_LEASE_REVOKE           1  /*    mds  -> client */
>
> base-commit: 75b607fab38d149f232f01eae5e6392b394dd659