On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 3:50 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/11/2022 22:32, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 3:15 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29/11/2022 18:39, Luís Henriques wrote:
> >>> When setting a directory's crypt context, ceph_dir_clear_complete() needs to
> >>> be called otherwise if it was complete before, any existing (old) dentry will
> >>> still be valid.
> >>>
> >>> This patch adds a wrapper around __fscrypt_prepare_readdir() which will
> >>> ensure a directory is marked as non-complete if key status changes.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Hi Xiubo,
> >>>
> >>> Here's a rebase of this patch. I did some testing but since this branch
> >>> doesn't really have full fscrypt support, I couldn't even reproduce the
> >>> bug. So, my testing was limited.
> >> I'm planing not to update the wip-fscrypt branch any more, except the IO
> >> path related fixes, which may introduce potential bugs each time as before.
> >>
> >> Since the qa tests PR has finished and the tests have passed, so we are
> >> planing to merge the first none IO part, around 27 patches. And then
> >> pull the reset patches from wip-fscrypt branch.
> > I'm not sure if merging metadata and I/O path patches separately
> > makes sense. What would a user do with just filename encryption?
>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> I think the IO ones should be followed soon.
>
> Currently the filename ones have been well testes. And the contents will
> be by passed for now.
>
> Since this is just for Dev Preview feature IMO it should be okay (?)
I don't think there is such a thing as a Dev Preview feature when it
comes to the mainline kernel, particularly in the area of filesystems
and storage. It should be ready for users at least to some extent. So
my question stands: what would a user do with just filename encryption?
Thanks,
Ilya
