Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:10:40 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
        jaegeuk@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] libfs: Support revalidation of encrypted
 case-insensitive dentries
Message-ID: <20230718221040.GA1005@sol.localdomain>
References: <20230422000310.1802-1-krisman@suse.de>
 <20230422000310.1802-5-krisman@suse.de>
 <20230714053135.GD913@sol.localdomain>
 <87h6q1580a.fsf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h6q1580a.fsf@suse.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:34:13PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:03:07PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> >> From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>
> >> 
> >> Preserve the existing behavior for encrypted directories, by rejecting
> >> negative dentries of encrypted+casefolded directories.  This allows
> >> generic_ci_d_revalidate to be used by filesystems with both features
> >> enabled, as long as the directory is either casefolded or encrypted, but
> >> not both at the same time.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/libfs.c | 8 ++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c
> >> index f8881e29c5d5..0886044db593 100644
> >> --- a/fs/libfs.c
> >> +++ b/fs/libfs.c
> >> @@ -1478,6 +1478,9 @@ static inline int generic_ci_d_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry,
> >>  		const struct inode *dir = READ_ONCE(parent->d_inode);
> >>  
> >>  		if (dir && needs_casefold(dir)) {
> >> +			if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir))
> >> +				return 0;
> >> +
> >
> > Why not allow negative dentries in case-insensitive encrypted directories?
> > I can't think any reason why it wouldn't just work.
> 
> TBH, I'm not familiar with the details of combined encrypted+casefold
> support to be confident it works.This patch preserves the current
> behavior of disabling them for encrypted+casefold directories.

Not allowing that combination reduces the usefulness of this patchset.
Note that Android's use of casefold is always combined with encryption.

> I suspect it might require extra work that I'm not focusing on this
> patchset.  For instance, what should be the order of
> fscrypt_d_revalidate and the checks I'm adding here?

Why would order matter?  If either "feature" wants the dentry to be invalidated,
then the dentry gets invalidated.

> Note we will start creating negative dentries in casefold directories after
> patch 6/7, so unless we disable it here, we will start calling
> fscrypt_d_revalidate for negative+casefold.

fscrypt_d_revalidate() only cares about the DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME flag, so that's
not a problem.

> 
> Should I just drop this hunk?  Unless you are confident it works as is, I
> prefer to add this support in stages and keep negative dentries of
> encrypted+casefold directories disabled for now.

Unless I'm missing something, I think you're overcomplicating it.  It should
just work if you don't go out of your way to prohibit this case.  I.e., just
don't add the IS_ENCRYPTED(dir) check to generic_ci_d_revalidate().

- Eric