On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 03:46:51PM +0100, broonie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
No, that's wrong. This:
diff --cc fs/erofs/xattr.c
index 015462763bdd5,a04724c816e5f..0000000000000
--- a/fs/erofs/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/xattr.c
@@@ -483,12 -517,28 +513,25 @@@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct xattr
{
struct listxattr_iter *it =
container_of(_it, struct listxattr_iter, it);
- unsigned int prefix_len;
- const char *prefix;
+ unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
+ unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
+ const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
- const struct xattr_handler *h;
+
+ if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
+ struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(_it->sb);
+ struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
+ (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
+
+ if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
+ return 1;
+ infix = pf->prefix->infix;
+ infix_len = pf->infix_len;
+ base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
+ }
- prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(entry->e_name_index, it->dentry);
- h = erofs_xattr_handler(base_index);
- if (!h || (h->list && !h->list(it->dentry)))
++ prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(base_index, it->dentry);
+ if (!prefix)
return 1;
-
- prefix = xattr_prefix(h);
prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
if (!it->buffer) {
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
