linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 703 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h

between commit:

  ed318a6cc0b6 ("fscrypt: support test_dummy_encryption=v2")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  1ae18f71cb52 ("f2fs: fix checkpoint=disable:%u%%")

from the f2fs tree.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1972 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst

between commit:

  38dff4e50c12 ("f2fs: add inline encryption support")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  a7c77c387b60 ("f2fs: fix to document reserved special compression extension")

from the f2fs tree.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
index 8b4fac44f4e1,535021c46260..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
@@@ -258,13 -258,8 +258,15 @@@ compress_extension=%s  Support adding s
                         on compression extension list and enable compression on
                         these file by default rather than to enable it via ioctl.
                         For other files, we can still enable compression via ioctl.
+                        Note that, there is one reserved special extension '*', it
+                        can be set to enable compression for all files.
 +inlinecrypt
 +                       When possible, encrypt/decrypt the contents of encrypted
 +                       files using the blk-crypto framework rather than
 +                       filesystem-layer encryption. This allows the use of
 +                       inline encryption hardware. The on-disk format is
 +                       unaffected. For more details, see
 +                       Documentation/block/inline-encryption.rst.
  ====================== ============================================================
  
  Debugfs Entries

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2205 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:38:58 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   38dff4e50c12 ("f2fs: add inline encryption support")
> 
> from the fscrypt tree and commit:
> 
>   a7c77c387b60 ("f2fs: fix to document reserved special compression extension")
> 
> from the f2fs tree.
> 
> 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.
> 
> diff --cc Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
> index 8b4fac44f4e1,535021c46260..000000000000
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/f2fs.rst
> @@@ -258,13 -258,8 +258,15 @@@ compress_extension=%s  Support adding s
>                          on compression extension list and enable compression on
>                          these file by default rather than to enable it via ioctl.
>                          For other files, we can still enable compression via ioctl.
> +                        Note that, there is one reserved special extension '*', it
> +                        can be set to enable compression for all files.
>  +inlinecrypt
>  +                       When possible, encrypt/decrypt the contents of encrypted
>  +                       files using the blk-crypto framework rather than
>  +                       filesystem-layer encryption. This allows the use of
>  +                       inline encryption hardware. The on-disk format is
>  +                       unaffected. For more details, see
>  +                       Documentation/block/inline-encryption.rst.
>   ====================== ============================================================
>   
>   Debugfs Entries

This is now a conflict between the f2fs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1545 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/dir.c

between commit:

  848a010287e6 ("f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  4e240d1bab1e ("f2fs: check memory boundary by insane namelen")

from the f2fs tree.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/f2fs/dir.c
index cf9e2564388d,c0c845da12fa..000000000000
--- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c
@@@ -808,7 -808,18 +808,18 @@@ int f2fs_fill_dentries(struct dir_conte
  		de_name.name = d->filename[bit_pos];
  		de_name.len = le16_to_cpu(de->name_len);
  
+ 		/* check memory boundary before moving forward */
+ 		bit_pos += GET_DENTRY_SLOTS(le16_to_cpu(de->name_len));
+ 		if (unlikely(bit_pos > d->max)) {
+ 			f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_WARNING,
+ 				"%s: corrupted namelen=%d, run fsck to fix.",
+ 				__func__, le16_to_cpu(de->name_len));
+ 			set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
+ 			err = -EINVAL;
+ 			goto out;
+ 		}
+ 
 -		if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(d->inode)) {
 +		if (IS_ENCRYPTED(d->inode)) {
  			int save_len = fstr->len;
  
  			err = fscrypt_fname_disk_to_usr(d->inode,

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1831 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:13:22 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/f2fs/dir.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   848a010287e6 ("f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status")
> 
> from the fscrypt tree and commit:
> 
>   4e240d1bab1e ("f2fs: check memory boundary by insane namelen")
> 
> from the f2fs tree.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/f2fs/dir.c
> index cf9e2564388d,c0c845da12fa..000000000000
> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c
> @@@ -808,7 -808,18 +808,18 @@@ int f2fs_fill_dentries(struct dir_conte
>   		de_name.name = d->filename[bit_pos];
>   		de_name.len = le16_to_cpu(de->name_len);
>   
> + 		/* check memory boundary before moving forward */
> + 		bit_pos += GET_DENTRY_SLOTS(le16_to_cpu(de->name_len));
> + 		if (unlikely(bit_pos > d->max)) {
> + 			f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_WARNING,
> + 				"%s: corrupted namelen=%d, run fsck to fix.",
> + 				__func__, le16_to_cpu(de->name_len));
> + 			set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> + 			err = -EINVAL;
> + 			goto out;
> + 		}
> + 
>  -		if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(d->inode)) {
>  +		if (IS_ENCRYPTED(d->inode)) {
>   			int save_len = fstr->len;
>   
>   			err = fscrypt_fname_disk_to_usr(d->inode,

This is now a conflict between the fscrypt tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Chandan Rajendra]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 5:56:10 AM IST Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:13:22 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/f2fs/dir.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   848a010287e6 ("f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status")
> > 
> > from the fscrypt tree and commit:
> > 
> >   4e240d1bab1e ("f2fs: check memory boundary by insane namelen")
> > 
> > from the f2fs tree.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> This is now a conflict between the fscrypt tree and Linus' tree.
> 
> 

fscrypt's master branch has fsverity patches applied. These are not available
on Linus' tree. Hence the conflict.

Just FYI, The discussion on merging fsverity into mainline kernel is still
going on.

-- 
chandan

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jaegeuk,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/namei.c

between commit:

  393c038f5c55 ("f2fs: switch to fscrypt ->symlink() helper functions")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  acbf054d537d ("f2fs: inject fault to kzalloc")

from the f2fs tree.

I fixed it up (I just dropped the change to this file from the latter
commit) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jaegeuk,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/inline.c

between commit:

  5fc36386d220 ("f2fs: check entire encrypted bigname when finding a dentry")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  64c24ecb3cff ("f2fs: split make_dentry_ptr() into block and inline versions")

from the f2fs tree.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/f2fs/inline.c
index fa729ff6b2f9,0ccdefe9fdba..000000000000
--- a/fs/f2fs/inline.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inline.c
@@@ -533,8 -533,8 +533,8 @@@ int f2fs_add_inline_entry(struct inode 
  
  	f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(ipage, NODE, true);
  
 -	name_hash = f2fs_dentry_hash(new_name);
 +	name_hash = f2fs_dentry_hash(new_name, NULL);
- 	make_dentry_ptr(NULL, &d, (void *)dentry_blk, 2);
+ 	make_dentry_ptr_inline(NULL, &d, dentry_blk);
  	f2fs_update_dentry(ino, mode, &d, new_name, name_hash, bit_pos);
  
  	set_page_dirty(ipage);

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jaegeuk,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/super.c

between commit:

  a5d431eff2e0 ("fscrypt: make fscrypt_operations.key_prefix a string")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  aacf533a90a7 ("f2fs: super: constify fscrypt_operations structure")

from the f2fs tree.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/f2fs/super.c
index 503c3b7fa053,8a02d747fa97..000000000000
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@@ -1170,9 -1207,9 +1201,9 @@@ static unsigned f2fs_max_namelen(struc
  			inode->i_sb->s_blocksize : F2FS_NAME_LEN;
  }
  
- static struct fscrypt_operations f2fs_cryptops = {
+ static const struct fscrypt_operations f2fs_cryptops = {
 +	.key_prefix	= "f2fs:",
  	.get_context	= f2fs_get_context,
 -	.key_prefix	= f2fs_key_prefix,
  	.set_context	= f2fs_set_context,
  	.is_encrypted	= f2fs_encrypted_inode,
  	.empty_dir	= f2fs_empty_dir,