Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2023 08:38:49 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] ceph: switch atomic open to use new fscrypt helper | From | Xiubo Li <> |
| |
On 14/03/2023 02:42, Luís Henriques wrote: > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> writes: > >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:33:10PM +0000, Luís Henriques wrote: >>> Switch ceph atomic open to use fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(). This fixes >>> a bug where a dentry is incorrectly set with DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME when 'dir' >>> has been evicted but the key is still available (for example, where there's >>> a drop_caches). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> >>> --- >>> fs/ceph/file.c | 8 +++----- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c >>> index dee3b445f415..5ad57cc4c13b 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ceph/file.c >>> +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c >>> @@ -795,11 +795,9 @@ int ceph_atomic_open(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, >>> ihold(dir); >>> if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir)) { >>> set_bit(CEPH_MDS_R_FSCRYPT_FILE, &req->r_req_flags); >>> - if (!fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir)) { >>> - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock); >>> - dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME; >>> - spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); >>> - } >>> + err = fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open(dir, dentry); >>> + if (err) >>> + goto out_req; >> Note that this patch does not apply to upstream or even to linux-next. > True, I should have mentioned that in the cover-letter. This patch should > be applied against the 'testing' branch in https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client, > which is where the ceph fscrypt currently lives. > >> I'd be glad to take patch 1 through the fscrypt tree for 6.4. But I'm wondering >> what the current plans are for getting ceph's fscrypt support upstream? > As far as I know, the current plan is to try to merge the ceph code during > the next merge window for 6.4 (but Xiubo and Ilya may correct me if I'm > wrong). Also, regarding who picks which patch, I'm fine with you picking > the first one. But I'll let the ceph maintainers say what they think, > because it may be easier for them to keep both patches together due to the > testing infrastructure being used. > > Anyway, I'll send out a new rev tomorrow taking your comments into > account. Thanks, Eric!
Eric, Luis,
It will be fine if Eric could merge patch 1 into the fscrypt tree. Then I will merge the patch 1 into the ceph-client's testing by tagging as [DO NOT MERGE] to run our tests.
And locally we are still running the test, and there have several fixes followed and need more time to review.
Thanks
- Xiubo
> Cheers,
-- Best Regards,
Xiubo Li (李秀波)
Email: xiubli@redhat.com/xiubli@ibm.com Slack: @Xiubo Li
| |