On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:53:51AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote: > > 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. > Well, then the !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION version would need to return 0 if IS_ENCRYPTED() too. Either way would be okay, but please don't do a mix of both approaches within a single function, as this patch currently does. Note that there are other fscrypt_* functions, such as fscrypt_get_symlink(), that require an IS_ENCRYPTED() inode, so that pattern is not new. - Eric
![]() |