> >> --- a/fs/exfat/namei.c > >> +++ b/fs/exfat/namei.c > >> @@ -1095,11 +1095,6 @@ static int exfat_move_file(struct inode > >> *inode, struct exfat_chain *p_olddir, > >> if (!epmov) > >> return -EIO; > >> > >> - /* check if the source and target directory is the same */ > >> - if (exfat_get_entry_type(epmov) == TYPE_DIR && > >> - le32_to_cpu(epmov->dentry.stream.start_clu) == p_newdir->dir) > >> - return -EINVAL; > >> - > > > > It might check if the cluster numbers are same between source entry > > and target directory. > > This checks if newdir is the move target itself. > Example: > mv /mnt/dir0 /mnt/dir0/foo > > However, this check is not enough. > We need to check newdir and all ancestors. > Example: > mv /mnt/dir0 /mnt/dir0/dir1/foo > mv /mnt/dir0 /mnt/dir0/dir1/dir2/foo > ... > > This is probably a taboo for all layered filesystems. > > > > Could you let me know what code you mentioned? > > Or do you mean the codes on vfs? > > You can find in do_renameat2(). --- around 'fs/namei.c:4440' > If the destination ancestors are itself, our driver will not be called. I think, of course, vfs has been doing that. So that code is unnecessary in normal situations. That code comes from the old exfat implementation. And as far as I understand, it seems to check once more "the cluster number" even though it comes through vfs so that it tries detecting abnormal of on-disk. Anyway, I agonized if it is really needed. In conclusion, old code could be eliminated and your patch looks reasonable. Thanks Acked-by: Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > BTW > Are you busy now? I'm sorry, I'm so busy for my full time work :( Anyway, I'm trying to review serious bug patches or bug reports first. Other patches, such as clean-up or code refactoring, may take some time to review. > I am waiting for your reply about "integrates dir-entry getting and > validation" patch. As I know, your patch is being under review by Namjae. > > BR > --- > Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@xxxxxxxxx>
