On 14/03/2023 10:25, Eric Biggers wrote:
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.
For the !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION version I think you mean:static inline int fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
{
if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
return 0;
}
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.
Yeah, correct, I didn't notice that. - Xiubo
- Eric
-- Best Regards, Xiubo Li (李秀波) Email: xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx/xiubli@xxxxxxx Slack: @Xiubo Li
|