On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 04:49:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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:
Yes, that fixup looks correct, thank you!
>
> 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) {
