[PATCH] AOSP: erofs-utils: fix sub directory prefix path in canned fs_config

[Gao Xiang]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:46:23PM +0800, Yue Hu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:39:52 +0800
> Gao Xiang <hsiangkao at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:30:14PM +0800, Yue Hu wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >     
> > > > > > +	else if (asprintf(&fspath, "%s/%s", cfg.mount_point,
> > > > > > +			  erofs_fspath(path)) <= 0)    
> > > > > 
> > > > > The argument of path will be root directory. And canned fs_config for root directory as
> > > > > below:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 0 0 755 selabel=u:object_r:rootfs:s0 capabilities=0x0
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, cannot add mount point to root directory for canned fs_config. And what about non-canned
> > > > > fs_config?    
> > > > 
> > > > Not quite sure what you mean. For non-canned fs_config, we didn't observed any strange
> > > > before (I ported to cuttlefish and hikey960 with boot success, also as I mentioned before
> > > > some other vendors already use it.)
> > > > 
> > > > I think the following commit is only useful for squashfs since its (non)root inode
> > > > workflows are different, so need to add in two difference place. But mkfs.erofs is not.
> > > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/squashfs-tools/+/85a6bc1e52bb911f195c5dc0890717913938c2d1%5E%21/#F0
> > > > 
> > > > For root inode is erofs, I think erofs_fspath(path) would return "", so that case
> > > > is included as well.... Am I missing something?  
> > > 
> > > Yes, erofs_fspath(path) returns "" for root inode. However, the above patch add the mount
> > > point to fspath when specify it, so the real path is "vendor/" which does not exist in canned
> > > fs_config file. build will report below error:
> > > 
> > > failed to find [/vendor/] in canned fs_config  
> > 
> > Hmmm... such design is quite strange for me....
> 
> :) i checked the squashfs before, seems root directory is handled in some position. Separated
> with sub directory fs_config. so i add the goto code in the 1st patch.

What confuses me a lot is that we didn't get any strange without canned fs_config
if mount point prefix is added. I will look into other implementation about this
later (Another guess is that relates to Android 10 only?).

Yeah, the opensource fs_config implementation might be different from HUAWEI
internal fs_config version since such part was not originally written by me and
I didn't pay more attention about this part when I was in my previous company.
But anyway, this cleanup opensource version is already used for some vendors
as well and I don't get such report... And any formal description about this
would be helpful for me to understand how fs_config really works..

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> > Could you try the following diff?
> 
> Let's me verify.
>