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):
 |