[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8aa61954-b6c4-d9b5-bb81-c03ca3631e3b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 08:38:49 +0800
From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
To: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ceph: switch atomic open to use new fscrypt helper
On 14/03/2023 02:42, Luís Henriques wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:33:10PM +0000, Luís Henriques wrote:
>>> Switch ceph atomic open to use fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(). This fixes
>>> a bug where a dentry is incorrectly set with DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME when 'dir'
>>> has been evicted but the key is still available (for example, where there's
>>> a drop_caches).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>
>>> ---
>>> fs/ceph/file.c | 8 +++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c
>>> index dee3b445f415..5ad57cc4c13b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ceph/file.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c
>>> @@ -795,11 +795,9 @@ int ceph_atomic_open(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>>> ihold(dir);
>>> if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir)) {
>>> set_bit(CEPH_MDS_R_FSCRYPT_FILE, &req->r_req_flags);
>>> - if (!fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir)) {
>>> - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>>> - dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME;
>>> - spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>>> - }
>>> + err = fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(dir, dentry);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto out_req;
>> Note that this patch does not apply to upstream or even to linux-next.
> True, I should have mentioned that in the cover-letter. This patch should
> be applied against the 'testing' branch in https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client,
> which is where the ceph fscrypt currently lives.
>
>> I'd be glad to take patch 1 through the fscrypt tree for 6.4. But I'm wondering
>> what the current plans are for getting ceph's fscrypt support upstream?
> As far as I know, the current plan is to try to merge the ceph code during
> the next merge window for 6.4 (but Xiubo and Ilya may correct me if I'm
> wrong). Also, regarding who picks which patch, I'm fine with you picking
> the first one. But I'll let the ceph maintainers say what they think,
> because it may be easier for them to keep both patches together due to the
> testing infrastructure being used.
>
> Anyway, I'll send out a new rev tomorrow taking your comments into
> account. Thanks, Eric!
Eric, Luis,
It will be fine if Eric could merge patch 1 into the fscrypt tree. Then
I will merge the patch 1 into the ceph-client's testing by tagging as
[DO NOT MERGE] to run our tests.
And locally we are still running the test, and there have several fixes
followed and need more time to review.
Thanks
- Xiubo
> Cheers,
--
Best Regards,
Xiubo Li (李秀波)
Email: xiubli@...hat.com/xiubli@....com
Slack: @Xiubo Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists