Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx> writes: > Hi! > > So, I've changed this code back into and RFC as I'm not sure yet if this > is it's final form. I think the 2 patches in this series should probably > be squashed into a single patch. I decided to keep them separate as the > 1st one is simple (it's the same patch I had already sent), and the 2nd > patch adds a lot more complexity to the whole thing. > > So, I've looked at Xiubo initial patch for handling snapshots long names. > It was complex, of course, and it required extra MDS changes. I *think* > my approach is slightly simpler, but I'm not entirely sure yet that I'm > handling every case. > > In order to test this code the following PRs are required: > > mds: add protection from clients without fscrypt support #45073 > mds: use the whole string as the snapshot long name #45192 > mds: support alternate names for snapshots #45224 > mds: limit the snapshot names to 240 characters #45312 > > Comments are welcome, I'm still testing these patches and I do expect to > find that something is still missing. And I do expect to find bugs. > These strings parsing scares me a lot, but I couldn't see a simpler > approach. Again, I forgot to mention in the cover-letter that handling base64-encoded snapshots that start with '_' is still missing. That's next on my list. Cheers, -- Luís > > Luís Henriques (2): > ceph: add support for encrypted snapshot names > ceph: add support for handling encrypted snapshot names in subtree > > fs/ceph/crypto.c | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > fs/ceph/crypto.h | 9 ++- > fs/ceph/dir.c | 9 +++ > fs/ceph/inode.c | 13 +++++ > 4 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >
