ecryptfs-devel team mailing list archive

[Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:20:21 +0900
> hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>> Here are several fixes for linux-2.6.27/fs/ecryptfs.
>>
>> - The ecryptfs inode holds a reference to the lower inode, but doesn't
>>   increment the reference counter. When a user sets inotify to the
>>   ecryptfs inode, it may live without the corresponding dentry. In this
>>   case the referecen to the lower inode may be broken.
>>   This patch maintains the reference of the lower inode.
>>
>> - follow the VFS unlink sequence in ecryptfs_unlink() which is
>>   inrementing and decrementing the inode->i_count and the reference
>>   counter for the dentry.
>>
>> - maintain the link count and ctime in ecryptfs_rmdir() because a user
>>   may issue fstat(2) later.
>>
>> - remove the unnecessary d_drop()s in ecryptfs_link().
>>
>> And I have experienced a strange behaviour. When ecryptfs gets -ENOSPC
>> from the lower fs, it converts and returns EINVAL to the userspace. Is
>> this an intended behaviour?
>>
> 
> I am puzzled by the current ecryptfs maintenance situation.
> 

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/768122

The torch has been passed to me.  :)

> I queued this for 2.6.30.  It could be bumped up for 2.6.29 (and even
> backported to 2.6.28 and earlier) with suitable acks from the
> maintainer(?)
> 

The changes to ecryptfs_rmdir() are valid, but not the rest of the patch.

>> ...
>>
>> +	atomic_inc_return(&lower_dentry->d_inode->i_count);
>> +	atomic_inc_return(&lower_inode->i_count);
> 
> atomic_inc() would suffice here, yes?
> 
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> s/atomic_inc_return/atomic_inc/
> 
> Cc: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
>  fs/ecryptfs/inode.c |    2 +-
>  fs/ecryptfs/super.c |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN fs/ecryptfs/inode.c~ecryptfs-some-inode-attr-fixes-fix fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c~ecryptfs-some-inode-attr-fixes-fix
> +++ a/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static int ecryptfs_unlink(struct inode 
> 
>  	lower_dir_dentry = lock_parent(lower_dentry);
>  	dget(lower_dentry);
> -	atomic_inc_return(&lower_dentry->d_inode->i_count);
> +	atomic_inc(&lower_dentry->d_inode->i_count);
>  	rc = vfs_unlink(lower_dir_inode, lower_dentry);
>  	dput(lower_dentry);
>  	if (rc) {
> diff -puN fs/ecryptfs/super.c~ecryptfs-some-inode-attr-fixes-fix fs/ecryptfs/super.c
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/super.c~ecryptfs-some-inode-attr-fixes-fix
> +++ a/fs/ecryptfs/super.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static void ecryptfs_destroy_inode(struc
>   */
>  void ecryptfs_init_inode(struct inode *inode, struct inode *lower_inode)
>  {
> -	atomic_inc_return(&lower_inode->i_count);
> +	atomic_inc(&lower_inode->i_count);
>  	ecryptfs_set_inode_lower(inode, lower_inode);
>  	inode->i_ino = lower_inode->i_ino;
>  	inode->i_version++;
> _
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-devel
> Post to     : ecryptfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-devel
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature