Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221129103949.19737-1-lhenriques@suse.de> <4914a195-edc0-747b-6598-9ac9868593a1@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4914a195-edc0-747b-6598-9ac9868593a1@redhat.com>
From:   Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:32:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOi1vP8raoFP2dsc6RY1fONCsHh5FYv2xifFY7pHXZWX=-vePw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ceph: mark directory as non-complete complete after
 loading key
To:     Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Lu=C3=ADs_Henriques?= <lhenriques@suse.de>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 3:15 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/11/2022 18:39, Lu=C3=ADs Henriques wrote:
> > When setting a directory's crypt context, ceph_dir_clear_complete() nee=
ds to
> > be called otherwise if it was complete before, any existing (old) dentr=
y will
> > still be valid.
> >
> > This patch adds a wrapper around __fscrypt_prepare_readdir() which will
> > ensure a directory is marked as non-complete if key status changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lu=C3=ADs Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
> > ---
> > Hi Xiubo,
> >
> > Here's a rebase of this patch.  I did some testing but since this branc=
h
> > doesn't really have full fscrypt support, I couldn't even reproduce the
> > bug.  So, my testing was limited.
>
> I'm planing not to update the wip-fscrypt branch any more, except the IO
> path related fixes, which may introduce potential bugs each time as befor=
e.
>
> Since the qa tests PR has finished and the tests have passed, so we are
> planing to merge the first none IO part, around 27 patches. And then
> pull the reset patches from wip-fscrypt branch.

I'm not sure if merging metadata and I/O path patches separately
makes sense.  What would a user do with just filename encryption?

Once fscrypt test suite is merged, I think we should let it bake
for for a few weeks and then merge the whole thing together.

Thanks,

                Ilya