Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Why would order matter? If either "feature" wants the dentry to be invalidated, > then the dentry gets invalidated. For instance, I was wondering makes sense for instance to memcmp d_name for !DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME or if we wanted fscrypt_d_revalidate to come first. >> 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. > > fscrypt_d_revalidate() only cares about the DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME flag, so that's > not a problem. ..I see now it is the first thing checked in fscrypt_d_revalidate. >> 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. > > Unless I'm missing something, I think you're overcomplicating it. Not overcomplicating. I'm just not familiar with fscrypt details enough to be sure I could enable it. But yes, it seems safe. > It should > just work if you don't go out of your way to prohibit this case. I.e., just > don't add the IS_ENCRYPTED(dir) check to generic_ci_d_revalidate(). I'll drop the check. And resend. Thanks, -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
