Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:03:07PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Preserve the existing behavior for encrypted directories, by rejecting
>> negative dentries of encrypted+casefolded directories. This allows
>> generic_ci_d_revalidate to be used by filesystems with both features
>> enabled, as long as the directory is either casefolded or encrypted, but
>> not both at the same time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/libfs.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c
>> index f8881e29c5d5..0886044db593 100644
>> --- a/fs/libfs.c
>> +++ b/fs/libfs.c
>> @@ -1478,6 +1478,9 @@ static inline int generic_ci_d_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry,
>> const struct inode *dir = READ_ONCE(parent->d_inode);
>>
>> if (dir && needs_casefold(dir)) {
>> + if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> Why not allow negative dentries in case-insensitive encrypted directories?
> I can't think any reason why it wouldn't just work.
TBH, I'm not familiar with the details of combined encrypted+casefold
support to be confident it works. This patch preserves the current
behavior of disabling them for encrypted+casefold directories.
I suspect it might require extra work that I'm not focusing on this
patchset. For instance, what should be the order of
fscrypt_d_revalidate and the checks I'm adding here? Note we will start
creating negative dentries in casefold directories after patch 6/7, so
unless we disable it here, we will start calling fscrypt_d_revalidate
for negative+casefold.
Should I just drop this hunk? Unless you are confident it works as is, I
prefer to add this support in stages and keep negative dentries of
encrypted+casefold directories disabled for now.
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
