* [PATCH] udf: Fix to check the return value of load_nls
@ 2019-03-19 2:59 Aditya Pakki
2019-03-19 8:52 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Aditya Pakki @ 2019-03-19 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pakki001; +Cc: kjlu, Jan Kara, linux-kernel
load_nls may fail and return an error message. The patch checks
for such a scenario and passes the error upstream.
Signed-off-by: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu>
---
fs/udf/super.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/udf/super.c b/fs/udf/super.c
index ffd8038ff728..1a38271de6d9 100644
--- a/fs/udf/super.c
+++ b/fs/udf/super.c
@@ -573,6 +573,8 @@ static int udf_parse_options(char *options, struct udf_options *uopt,
if (uopt->nls_map)
unload_nls(uopt->nls_map);
uopt->nls_map = load_nls(args[0].from);
+ if (!uopt->nls_map)
+ return 0;
uopt->flags |= (1 << UDF_FLAG_NLS_MAP);
}
break;
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix to check the return value of load_nls
2019-03-19 2:59 [PATCH] udf: Fix to check the return value of load_nls Aditya Pakki
@ 2019-03-19 8:52 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2019-03-19 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aditya Pakki; +Cc: kjlu, Jan Kara, linux-kernel
On Mon 18-03-19 21:59:49, Aditya Pakki wrote:
> load_nls may fail and return an error message. The patch checks
> for such a scenario and passes the error upstream.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu>
Thanks for the patch! But there's other code handling nls_map in
udf_fill_super() which takes care about this situation:
if ((uopt.flags & (1 << UDF_FLAG_NLS_MAP)) && !uopt.nls_map) {
uopt.nls_map = load_nls_default();
if (!uopt.nls_map)
uopt.flags &= ~(1 << UDF_FLAG_NLS_MAP);
else
udf_debug("Using default NLS map\n");
}
So if we failed to load nls map admin originally requested, we fall back to
a default nls map or just don't load anything. It is questionable whether
we shouldn't fail mount rather than trying to continue with a different nls
map but at this point I don't see a strong reason to change the current
behavior users can depend on...
I've added a comment to udf_parse_options() to explain the code flow.
Honza
> ---
> fs/udf/super.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/udf/super.c b/fs/udf/super.c
> index ffd8038ff728..1a38271de6d9 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/super.c
> +++ b/fs/udf/super.c
> @@ -573,6 +573,8 @@ static int udf_parse_options(char *options, struct udf_options *uopt,
> if (uopt->nls_map)
> unload_nls(uopt->nls_map);
> uopt->nls_map = load_nls(args[0].from);
> + if (!uopt->nls_map)
> + return 0;
> uopt->flags |= (1 << UDF_FLAG_NLS_MAP);
> }
> break;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-03-19 8:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-03-19 2:59 [PATCH] udf: Fix to check the return value of load_nls Aditya Pakki
2019-03-19 8:52 ` Jan Kara
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).