On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:13:14PM -0500, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Finally, we need to clean the dentry->flags even for unencrypted
> dentries, so the ->d_lock might be acquired even for them. In order to
might => must?
> diff --git a/include/linux/fscrypt.h b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
> index 47567a6a4f9d..d1f17b90c30f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fscrypt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fscrypt.h
> @@ -951,10 +951,29 @@ static inline int fscrypt_prepare_rename(struct inode
> *old_dir,
> static inline void fscrypt_prepare_dentry(struct dentry *dentry,
> bool is_nokey_name)
> {
> + /*
> + * This code tries to only take ->d_lock when necessary to write
> + * to ->d_flags. We shouldn't be peeking on d_flags for
> + * DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE unlocked, but in the unlikely case
> + * there is a race, the worst it can happen is that we fail to
> + * unset DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE and pay the cost of an extra
> + * d_revalidate.
> + */
> if (is_nokey_name) {
> spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_NOKEY_NAME;
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + } else if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE &&
> + dentry->d_op->d_revalidate == fscrypt_d_revalidate) {
> + /*
> + * Unencrypted dentries and encrypted dentries where the
> + * key is available are always valid from fscrypt
> + * perspective. Avoid the cost of calling
> + * fscrypt_d_revalidate unnecessarily.
> + */
> + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE;
> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> }
> }
Does this all get optimized out when !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION?
As-is, I don't think the d_revalidate part will be optimized out.
You may need to create a !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION stub explicitly.
- Eric
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
