Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix dentry hash calculation for case-insensitive mounts

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:31:50 -0600
> Shirish Pargaonkar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > case-insensitive mounts shouldn't use full_name_hash(). Make sure we
>> > use the parent dentry's d_hash routine when one is set.
>> >
>> > Reported-by: Dave Kleikamp <[email protected]>
>> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> >  fs/cifs/readdir.c |    7 +++++--
>> >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/readdir.c b/fs/cifs/readdir.c
>> > index f5618f8..c343b14 100644
>> > --- a/fs/cifs/readdir.c
>> > +++ b/fs/cifs/readdir.c
>> > @@ -77,6 +77,11 @@ cifs_readdir_lookup(struct dentry *parent, struct qstr *name,
>> >
>> >        cFYI(1, ("For %s", name->name));
>> >
>> > +       if (parent->d_op && parent->d_op->d_hash)
>> > +               parent->d_op->d_hash(parent, name);
>> > +       else
>> > +               name->hash = full_name_hash(name->name, name->len);
>> > +
>> >        dentry = d_lookup(parent, name);
>> >        if (dentry) {
>> >                /* FIXME: check for inode number changes? */
>> > @@ -671,8 +676,6 @@ static int cifs_get_name_from_search_buf(struct qstr *pqst,
>> >                pqst->name = filename;
>> >                pqst->len = len;
>> >        }
>> > -       pqst->hash = full_name_hash(pqst->name, pqst->len);
>> > -/*     cFYI(1, ("filldir on %s",pqst->name));  */
>> >        return rc;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > --
>> > 1.6.6
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > linux-cifs-client mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-cifs-client
>> >
>>
>> Jeff, these are functions, full_name_hash etc. treat name->name and
>> name->len as
>> character names strings and character name string lenghts, is that correct?
>> There is not unicode consideration while generating hash values at this point?
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand your question...
>
> The names are assumed to already be converted to filenames in the local
> character set. The hashing routines just treat the string as an opaque
> sequence of bytes of the given length.
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>

OK, understand it now. Looks fine.