On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:57:40PM -0500, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > diff -ruNpX dontdiff linux-2.6.15/fs/reiserfs/inode.c linux-2.6.15-reiserfs/fs/reiserfs/inode.c > --- linux-2.6.15/fs/reiserfs/inode.c 2006-02-06 19:54:10.000000000 -0500 > +++ linux-2.6.15-reiserfs/fs/reiserfs/inode.c 2006-02-12 12:43:00.000000000 -0500 > @@ -1195,6 +1195,7 @@ static void init_inode(struct inode *ino > /* nopack is initially zero for v1 objects. For v2 objects, > nopack is initialised from sd_attrs */ > REISERFS_I(inode)->i_flags &= ~i_nopack_mask; > + REISERFS_I(inode)->i_attrs = 0; This part of the patch works fine for my test case - no more bogus attributes, even when mounting with the "attrs" option. > } else { > // new stat data found, but object may have old items > // (directories and symlinks) > diff -ruNpX dontdiff linux-2.6.15/fs/reiserfs/super.c linux-2.6.15-reiserfs/fs/reiserfs/super.c > --- linux-2.6.15/fs/reiserfs/super.c 2006-02-06 19:54:27.000000000 -0500 > +++ linux-2.6.15-reiserfs/fs/reiserfs/super.c 2006-02-12 12:48:41.000000000 -0500 > @@ -1121,7 +1121,9 @@ static void handle_attrs(struct super_bl > "reiserfs: cannot support attributes until flag is set in super-block"); > REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt &= ~(1 << REISERFS_ATTRS); > } > - } else if (le32_to_cpu(rs->s_flags) & reiserfs_attrs_cleared) { > + } else if (le32_to_cpu(rs->s_flags) & reiserfs_attrs_cleared && > + get_inode_item_key_version(s->s_root->d_inode) == KEY_FORMAT_3_6) { > + /* Enable attrs by default on v3.6-native file systems */ > REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt |= (1 << REISERFS_ATTRS); > } > } This part, however, does not work - apparently the condition is never true, even on a freshly created 3.6-format filesystem: # mkreiserfs --format 3.6 -f tmp2.img # mount -t reiserfs -o loop tmp2.img /mnt/disk/ # lsattr -d /mnt/disk/ lsattr: Inappropriate ioctl for device While reading flags on /mnt/disk/ Apparently directories always have old key format, even on new filesystems: if (old_format_only(sb) || S_ISDIR(mode) || S_ISLNK(mode)) set_inode_item_key_version(inode, KEY_FORMAT_3_5); else set_inode_item_key_version(inode, KEY_FORMAT_3_6); However, checking the stat data format works: diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/inode.c b/fs/reiserfs/inode.c index b33d67b..a2ea7ed 100644 --- a/fs/reiserfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/reiserfs/inode.c @@ -1195,6 +1195,7 @@ static void init_inode(struct inode *ino /* nopack is initially zero for v1 objects. For v2 objects, nopack is initialised from sd_attrs */ REISERFS_I(inode)->i_flags &= ~i_nopack_mask; + REISERFS_I(inode)->i_attrs = 0; } else { // new stat data found, but object may have old items // (directories and symlinks) diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/super.c b/fs/reiserfs/super.c index ef5e541..acafe32 100644 --- a/fs/reiserfs/super.c +++ b/fs/reiserfs/super.c @@ -1124,7 +1124,9 @@ static void handle_attrs(struct super_bl "reiserfs: cannot support attributes until flag is set in super-block"); REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt &= ~(1 << REISERFS_ATTRS); } - } else if (le32_to_cpu(rs->s_flags) & reiserfs_attrs_cleared) { + } else if ((le32_to_cpu(rs->s_flags) & reiserfs_attrs_cleared) && + (get_inode_sd_version(s->s_root->d_inode) == STAT_DATA_V2)) { + /* Enable attrs by default on v3.6-native file systems */ REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt |= (1 << REISERFS_ATTRS); } } But this patch has another problem - it forces the "attrs" option on for such filesystems, leaving no way to turn it off - the "noattrs" option is ignored. This does not look good.
Attachment:
pgpZtwprQDvrD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- References:
- 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Sergey Vlasov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
- 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- Prev by Date: Re: max symlink = 5? ?bug? ?feature deficit?
- Next by Date: Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.15 Bug? New security model?
- Index(es):