romfs: use different way to generate fsid for BLOCK or MTD
[ Upstream commit f598f82e ] Commit 8a59f5d2 ("fs/romfs: return f_fsid for statfs(2)") generates a 64bit id from sb->s_bdev->bd_dev. This is only correct when romfs is defined with CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK. If romfs is only defined with CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD, sb->s_bdev is NULL, referencing sb->s_bdev->bd_dev will triger an oops. Richard Weinberger points out that when CONFIG_ROMFS_BACKED_BY_BOTH=y, both CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK and CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD are defined. Therefore when calling huge_encode_dev() to generate a 64bit id, I use the follow order to choose parameter, - CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK defined use sb->s_bdev->bd_dev - CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK undefined and CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD defined use sb->s_dev when, - both CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_BLOCK and CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD undefined leave id as 0 When CONFIG_ROMFS_ON_MTD is defined and sb->s_mtd is not NULL, sb->s_dev is set to a device ID generated by MTD_BLOCK_MAJOR and mtd index, otherwise sb->s_dev is 0. This is a try-best effort to generate a uniq file system ID, if all the above conditions are not meet, f_fsid of this romfs instance will be 0. Generally only one romfs can be built on single MTD block device, this method is enough to identify multiple romfs instances in a computer. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1482928596-115155-1-git-send-email-colyli@suse.deSigned-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> Reported-by: Nong Li <nongli1031@gmail.com> Tested-by: Nong Li <nongli1031@gmail.com> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment