On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:14:02AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 04:16:02PM -0500, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> > fscrypt dentries are always valid once the key is available. Since the
> > key cannot be removed without evicting the dentry, we don't need to keep
> > retrying to revalidate it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/crypto/fname.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/crypto/fname.c b/fs/crypto/fname.c
> > index 7b3fc189593a..0457ba2d7d76 100644
> > --- a/fs/crypto/fname.c
> > +++ b/fs/crypto/fname.c
> > @@ -591,8 +591,15 @@ int fscrypt_d_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags)
> > * reverting to no-key names without evicting the directory's inode
> > * -- which implies eviction of the dentries in the directory.
> > */
> > - if (!(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME))
> > + if (!(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME)) {
> > + /*
> > + * If fscrypt is the only feature requiring
> > + * revalidation for this dentry, we can just disable it.
> > + */
> > + if (dentry->d_op->d_revalidate == &fscrypt_d_revalidate)
>
> Umm... What about ceph? IOW, why do we care how had we gotten to that
> function - directly via ->d_revalidate() or from ->d_revalidate() instance?
Nevermind.
