Re: [PATCH 2/2] ceph: switch atomic open to use new fscrypt helper

[Luís Henriques]

Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 14/03/2023 02:42, Luís Henriques wrote:
>> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>   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.

Awesome, so Eric can pick the first patch.  Thanks.

Cheers,
-- 
Luís

> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/xiubli@xxxxxxx
> Slack: @Xiubo Li
>