On 14/03/2023 02:09, Eric Biggers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:33:09PM +0000, Luís Henriques wrote:
+ * The regular open path will use fscrypt_file_open for that, but in the
+ * atomic open a different approach is required.
This should actually be fscrypt_prepare_lookup, not fscrypt_file_open, right?
+int fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
+{
+ int err;
+
+ if (!IS_ENCRYPTED(dir))
+ return 0;
+
+ err = fscrypt_get_encryption_info(dir, true);
+ if (!err && !fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir)) {
+ spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME;
+ spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ }
+
+ return err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open);
[...]
+static inline int fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(struct inode *dir,
+ struct dentry *dentry)
+{
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
This has different behavior on unencrypted directories depending on whether
CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION is enabled or not. That's bad.
In patch 2, the caller you are introducing has already checked IS_ENCRYPTED().
Also, your kerneldoc comment for fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open() says it is for
*encrypted* directories.
So IMO, just remove the IS_ENCRYPTED() check from the CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION
version of fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open().
IMO we should keep this check in fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open() to make
it consistent with the existing fscrypt_prepare_open(). And we can just
remove the check from ceph instead.
- Xiubo
- Eric
--
Best Regards,
Xiubo Li (李秀波)
Email: xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx/xiubli@xxxxxxx
Slack: @Xiubo Li
