Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] ceph: mark directory as non-complete complete after loading key | From | Xiubo Li <> | Date | Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:25:19 +0800 |
| |
On 30/11/2022 14:54, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:21 AM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 3:50 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 29/11/2022 22:32, Ilya Dryomov wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 3:15 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On 29/11/2022 18:39, Luís Henriques wrote: >>>>>> When setting a directory's crypt context, ceph_dir_clear_complete() needs to >>>>>> be called otherwise if it was complete before, any existing (old) dentry 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: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Hi Xiubo, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a rebase of this patch. I did some testing but since this branch >>>>>> 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 before. >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>> Hi Ilya, >>> >>> I think the IO ones should be followed soon. >>> >>> Currently the filename ones have been well testes. And the contents will >>> be by passed for now. >>> >>> Since this is just for Dev Preview feature IMO it should be okay (?) >> I don't think there is such a thing as a Dev Preview feature when it >> comes to the mainline kernel, particularly in the area of filesystems >> and storage. It should be ready for users at least to some extent. So >> my question stands: what would a user do with just filename encryption? > I think how this merges is up to you guys and the kernel practices. > Merging only the filename encryption is definitely of *limited* > utility, but I don't think it's totally pointless -- the data versus > metadata paths are different and you are protecting against somewhat > different vulnerabilities and threat models with them. For instance, > MDS logs dump filenames, but OSD logs do not dump object data. There's > some obvious utility there even if you basically trust your provider, > or run your own cluster but want to be more secure about sending logs > via ceph-post-file.
Hi Greg,
Sounds reasonable to me.
I will leave this to Ilya.
Thanks!
- Xiubo
> -Greg > >> Thanks, >> >> Ilya >>
| |