From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751500AbbFYFuU (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:50:20 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:33738 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751006AbbFYFuN (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:50:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:50:10 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS Dev Mailing List , Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List , Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.2 Message-ID: <20150625054917.GA43469@jaegeuk-mac02.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <20150624202401.GA40031@jaegeuk-mac02.mot.com> <20150625043334.GT17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150625043334.GT17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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,