From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: "Luís Henriques" <lhenriques@suse.de>
Cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fscrypt: new helper function - fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open()
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 10:56:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZBC1P4Gn6eAKD61+@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zg8ftz9s.fsf@suse.de>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:15:11AM +0000, Luís Henriques wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:33:09PM +0000, Luís Henriques wrote:
> >> + * The regular open path will use fscrypt_file_open for that, but in the
> >> + * atomic open a different approach is required.
> >
> > This should actually be fscrypt_prepare_lookup, not fscrypt_file_open, right?
>
> Ups, I missed this comment.
>
> I was comparing the regular open() with the atomic_open() paths. I think
> I really mean fscrypt_file_open() because that's where the encryption info
> is (or may be) set by calling fscrypt_require_key(). atomic_open needs
> something similar, but combined with a lookup.
>
> Maybe I can rephrase it to:
>
> The reason for getting the encryption info before checking if the
> directory has the encryption key is because the key may be available but
> the encryption info isn't yet set (maybe due to a drop_caches). The
> regular open path will call fscrypt_file_open which uses function
> fscrypt_require_key for setting the encryption info if needed. The
> atomic open needs to do something similar.
>
No, regular open is two parts: ->lookup and ->open. fscrypt_prepare_lookup()
sets up the directory's key, whereas fscrypt_file_open() sets up the file's key.
Your proposed fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open() sets up the directory's key. So it
is really fscrypt_prepare_lookup() that is its equivalent.
However, that raises the question of why doesn't ceph just use
fscrypt_prepare_lookup()? It seems the answer is that ceph wants to handle the
filenames encryption and no-key name encoding itself. And for that reason, its
->lookup() does the following and does *not* use fscrypt_prepare_lookup():
if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir)) {
err = ceph_fscrypt_prepare_readdir(dir);
if (err < 0)
return ERR_PTR(err);
if (!fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir)) {
spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME;
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
}
}
So, actually I think this patch doesn't make sense. If ceph is doing the above
in its ->lookup() anyway, then it just should do the exact same thing in its
->atomic_open() too.
If you want to add a new fscrypt_* helper function which *just* sets up the
given directory's key and sets the NOKEY_NAME flag on the given dentry
accordingly, that could make sense. However, it should be called from *both*
->lookup() and ->atomic_open(), not just ->atomic_open().
It's also worth mentioning that setting up the filename separately from the
NOKEY_NAME flag makes ceph have the same race condition that I had fixed for the
other filesystems in commit b01531db6cec ("fscrypt: fix race where ->lookup()
marks plaintext dentry as ciphertext"). It's not a huge deal, but it can cause
some odd behavior, so it's worth thinking about whether it can be solved.
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-14 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-13 12:33 [PATCH 0/2] ceph: fscrypt: fix atomic open bug for encrypted directories Luís Henriques
2023-03-13 12:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] fscrypt: new helper function - fscrypt_prepare_atomic_open() Luís Henriques
2023-03-13 18:09 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-14 0:53 ` Xiubo Li
2023-03-14 2:25 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-14 4:20 ` Xiubo Li
2023-03-14 9:25 ` Luís Henriques
2023-03-14 10:15 ` Luís Henriques
2023-03-14 17:56 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2023-03-15 11:08 ` Luís Henriques
2023-03-15 17:12 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-15 17:59 ` Luís Henriques
2023-03-13 12:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] ceph: switch atomic open to use new fscrypt helper Luís Henriques
2023-03-13 18:11 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-13 18:42 ` Luís Henriques
2023-03-14 0:38 ` Xiubo Li
2023-03-14 9:27 ` Luís Henriques
2023-03-13 17:11 ` [PATCH 0/2] ceph: fscrypt: fix atomic open bug for encrypted directories Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZBC1P4Gn6eAKD61+@sol.localdomain \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=lhenriques@suse.de \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=xiubli@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox