Hi Al and All,
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 at 05:25, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> First of all, any dentry getting here would have passed bfs_lookup(),
> so it it passed ENAMETOOLONG check there, there's no need to
> repeat it. And we are not going to get dentries with zero name length -
> that check ultimately comes from ext2 and it's as pointless here as it
> used to be there.
Yes, you are absolutely right, of course -- I must have looked at ext3
(I think it was ext3, not ext2) code at the time I wrote this and
assumed that it was necessary.
Kind regards,
Tigran
Acknowledged-by: Tigran Aivazian <aivazian.tigran@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/bfs/dir.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/bfs/dir.c b/fs/bfs/dir.c
> index fbc4ae80a4b2..c375e22c4c0c 100644
> --- a/fs/bfs/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/bfs/dir.c
> @@ -275,11 +275,6 @@ static int bfs_add_entry(struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *child, int ino)
>
> dprintf("name=%s, namelen=%d\n", name, namelen);
>
> - if (!namelen)
> - return -ENOENT;
> - if (namelen > BFS_NAMELEN)
> - return -ENAMETOOLONG;
> -
> sblock = BFS_I(dir)->i_sblock;
> eblock = BFS_I(dir)->i_eblock;
> for (block = sblock; block <= eblock; block++) {
> --
> 2.39.2
>
