lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ext4 crypto: migrate into vfs's crypto engine
Hi Jaegeuk,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:15:36PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch removes the most parts of internal crypto codes.
> And then, it modifies and adds some ext4-specific crypt codes to use the generic
> facility.

Except for the key name prefix issue that Ted pointed out, this overall seems
good, although I didn't read into every detail and haven't yet tested the code.
A few comments:

There are compiler errors and warnings in the function 'dx_show_leaf()', which
is not compiled by default.

In ext4_lookup():
> /*
> * DCACHE_ENCRYPTED_WITH_KEY is set if the dentry is
> * created while the directory was encrypted and we
> * don't have access to the key.
> */
> if (fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir))
> fscrypt_set_encrypted_dentry(dentry);

Shouldn't this say "and we have access to the key"? Or is the code wrong?

In ext4_empty_dir():
> bool err = false;

Since this is a bool it should not be called "err". Maybe call it "empty"
instead.

In ext4_finish_bio():
> if (!page->mapping) {
> /* The bounce data pages are unmapped. */
> data_page = page;
> fscrypt_pullback_bio_page(&page, false);
> }
...
>#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
> if (data_page)
> fscrypt_restore_control_page(data_page);
>#endif

Does this always do the same thing as the previous code? Does !page->mapping
always imply that the page was involved in encrypted I/O?

In ext4_encrypted_get_link():
> if ((cstr.len +
> sizeof(struct fscrypt_symlink_data) - 1) >
> max_size) {

Make this one line?

In ext4_file_mmap()
> int err = fscrypt_get_encryption_info(inode);
> if (err)
> return 0;

Should the error code be propagated to the caller?

In ext4_ioctl():
> case EXT4_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY: {
>#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
> struct fscrypt_policy policy;
> int err = 0;
>
> if (!ext4_encrypted_inode(inode))
> return -ENOENT;

This is existing code and I do not know if it can be changed, but I feel that
ENOENT is a not good error code here. If the ext4_encrypted_inode() check were
to be removed, the implementation would match f2fs and the error code would be
ENODATA instead.

- Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-07 04:41    [W:0.174 / U:17.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site