On 2021-01-20 08:52:27, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:11 PM Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Prior to commit 7c03e2cda4a5 ("vfs: move cap_convert_nscap() call into
> > > vfs_setxattr()") the translation of nscap->rootid did not take stacked
> > > filesystems (overlayfs and ecryptfs) into account.
> > >
> > > That patch fixed the overlay case, but made the ecryptfs case worse.
> > >
> > > Restore old the behavior for ecryptfs that existed before the overlayfs
> > > fix. This does not fix ecryptfs's handling of complex user namespace
> > > setups, but it does make sure existing setups don't regress.
> >
> > Today vfs_setxattr handles handles a delegated_inode and breaking
> > leases. Code that is enabled with CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING. So unless
> > I am missing something this introduces a different regression into
> > ecryptfs.
>
> This is in line with all the other cases of ecryptfs passing NULL as
> delegated inode.
>
> I'll defer this to the maintainer of ecryptfs.
eCryptfs cannot be exported so I do not think this proposed fix to
ecryptfs_setxattr() creates a new regression wrt inode delegation.
Tyler
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
