On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:46:23PM +0800, Yue Hu wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:39:52 +0800 > Gao Xiang <[email protected]> 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. >
