Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.2

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> 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?