On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:33:34AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > New features are: > > > o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4) > > > > The new encrypted symlinks needed fixups for the changes that happened > > meanwhile to the symlink handling. I did all that in my merge, and I > > *think* I got it all right, but I would like you to check. In > > particular, I hope you have a test-case and can actually give it a > > whirl on that. > > > > Al added to cc, just in case he could also check my merge resolution > > of fs/f2fs/namei.c (the merge is commit cfcc0ad47f4c, I'll push it out > > after I've finished the filesystem pulls) > > FWIW, linux-next contains fixups for a bunch of such stuff, > including f2fs one. The only difference between your resolution and > Stephen's fixup is > static const char *f2fs_encrypted_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, > void **cookie) > vs. > static const char *f2fs_encrypted_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, void **cookie) > > Said that, f2fs_symlink() looks odd - we create a directory entry *before* > doing page_symlink(). And if it (or encryption) fails, I don't see anything > that would remove that new directory entry. What are we ending up with > in such case? Thanks Al, Right, I missed merging the fix-up patch in linux-next into my pull-request. At a glance, I think there is no problem; except 80 column width, though. Also, agreed that I need to take a look at deleting the dentry to deal with that failure case. Thanks, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
