linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd 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: <20251203101108.02f419d7@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 10:11:08 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jeff Layton
 <jlayton@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>, NeilBrown
 <neilb@...mail.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd
 tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 07:34:52 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8a25e05a98ab ("nfsd: move name lookup out of nfsd4_list_rec_dir()")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
> 
>   4fa76319cd0c ("vfs: allow rmdir to wait for delegation break on parent")
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> diff --cc fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
> index b1005abcb903,1f031e5af5b2..000000000000
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
> @@@ -201,18 -210,17 +199,16 @@@ nfsd4_create_clid_dir(struct nfs4_clien
>   		 * In the 4.0 case, we should never get here; but we may
>   		 * as well be forgiving and just succeed silently.
>   		 */
> - 		goto out_put;
> - 	dentry = vfs_mkdir(&nop_mnt_idmap, d_inode(dir), dentry, S_IRWXU);
> + 		goto out_end;
> + 	dentry = vfs_mkdir(&nop_mnt_idmap, d_inode(dir), dentry, S_IRWXU, NULL);
>   	if (IS_ERR(dentry))
>   		status = PTR_ERR(dentry);
> - out_put:
> - 	if (!status)
> - 		dput(dentry);
> - out_unlock:
> - 	inode_unlock(d_inode(dir));
> + out_end:
> + 	end_creating(dentry);
> + out:
>   	if (status == 0) {
>   		if (nn->in_grace)
>  -			__nfsd4_create_reclaim_record_grace(clp, dname,
>  -					HEXDIR_LEN, nn);
>  +			__nfsd4_create_reclaim_record_grace(clp, dname, nn);
>   		vfs_fsync(nn->rec_file, 0);
>   	} else {
>   		printk(KERN_ERR "NFSD: failed to write recovery record"
> @@@ -406,17 -415,10 +394,17 @@@ purge_old(struct dentry *parent, char *
>   	if (nfs4_has_reclaimed_state(name, nn))
>   		goto out_free;
>   
>  -	status = vfs_rmdir(&nop_mnt_idmap, d_inode(parent), child, NULL);
>  -	if (status)
>  -		printk("failed to remove client recovery directory %pd\n",
>  -				child);
>  +	inode_lock_nested(d_inode(parent), I_MUTEX_PARENT);
>  +	child = lookup_one(&nop_mnt_idmap, &QSTR(cname), parent);
>  +	if (!IS_ERR(child)) {
> - 		status = vfs_rmdir(&nop_mnt_idmap, d_inode(parent), child);
> ++		status = vfs_rmdir(&nop_mnt_idmap, d_inode(parent), child, NULL);
>  +		if (status)
>  +			printk("failed to remove client recovery directory %pd\n",
>  +			       child);
>  +		dput(child);
>  +	}
>  +	inode_unlock(d_inode(parent));
>  +
>   out_free:
>   	kfree(name.data);
>   out:

This is now a conflict between the nfsd tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped