On 2024/10/9 15:37, Gao Xiang wrote:
Hi Christoph,
...
diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
index 666873f745da..b89836a8760d 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/super.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
@@ -705,7 +705,9 @@ static int erofs_fc_get_tree(struct fs_context *fc)
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ONDEMAND) && sbi->fsid)
return get_tree_nodev(fc, erofs_fc_fill_super);
- ret = get_tree_bdev(fc, erofs_fc_fill_super);
+ ret = get_tree_bdev_flags(fc, erofs_fc_fill_super,
+ IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EROFS_FS_BACKED_BY_FILE) ?
+ GET_TREE_BDEV_QUIET_LOOKUP : 0);
Why not pass it unconditionally and provide your own more useful
error message at the end of the function if you could not find any
source?
My own (potential) concern is that if CONFIG_EROFS_FS_BACKED_BY_FILE
is off, EROFS should just behave as other pure bdev fses since I'm
not sure if some userspace program really relies on
"Can't lookup blockdev" behavior.
.. Yet that is just my own potential worry anyway.
Many thanks all for the review... So I guess it sounds fine?
Hi Christian,
If they also look good to you, since it's a VFS change,
if possible, could you apply these two patches through
the VFS tree for this cycle? There is a redundant blank
line removal in the first patch, I guess you could help
adjust or I need to submit another version?
I also have another related fix in erofs tree to address
a syzbot issue
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240917130803.32418-1-hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
but it shouldn't cause any conflict with the second
patch though..
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
