Hi Paulo,
Are you planning to post another version of this patch? If there is
already one HI which I missed, please let me know.
--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky
вт, 11 мая 2021 г. в 11:20, Paulo Alcantara <pc@xxxxxx>:
>
> Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I would put in the commit msg that this requires recent kernel.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > We should probably merge kernel code first so we can reference it here
> > in the commit msg, and say in the man page when did the kernel change.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > There can be cases where cifs-utils is more recent than kernel and
> > mount.cifs will pass all the ip instead of trying them before passing
> > the good one to the kernel but since it's an old kernel it won't try
> > them all.
>
> Good point! Yes, we should handle both cases.
>
> > We could add an option to enable new behavior or check the kernel
> > version from within mount.cifs.. thoughts?
>
> I don't like the idea of checking the version because the running kernel
> might not have the expected patches.
>
> Perhaps a new option would be better... I'll think more about it.
>
> > Paulo Alcantara <pc@xxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> +static void set_ip_params(char *options, size_t options_size, char *addrlist)
> >> +{
> >> + char *s = addrlist + strlen(addrlist), *q = s;
> >> + char tmp;
> >> +
> >> + do {
> >> + for (; s >= addrlist && *s != ','; s--);
> >> + tmp = *q;
> >> + *q = '\0';
> >> + strlcat(options, *options ? ",ip=" : "ip=", options_size);
> >> + strlcat(options, s + 1, options_size);
> >> + *q = tmp;
> >> + } while (q = s--, s >= addrlist);
> >> +}
> >
> > I think you should write this in a clearer way and comment, this is hard
> > to read.
>
> That's horrible, indeed. I'll definitely make it readable in next
> version.
>
> > I was going to say should we return errors if we truncate the ips, but
> > none of the mount.cifs.c code checks for truncation so I guess we can
> > ignore.
>
> IIRC, yes.
