On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote:
> I forgot to mention, there's a merge conflict when pulling the ext4
> and fscrypt trees. The fixup is relatively straightforward:
It doesn't actually look all that straightforward, and in particular,
the resolution you sent me doesn't actually seem correct:
> new_fl |= S_NOATIME;
> if (flags & EXT4_DIRSYNC_FL)
> new_fl |= S_DIRSYNC;
> - if (test_opt(inode->i_sb, DAX) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) &&
> - !ext4_should_journal_data(inode) && !ext4_has_inline_data(inode)
> &&
> - !(flags & EXT4_ENCRYPT_FL))
> + if (ext4_should_use_dax(inode))
> new_fl |= S_DAX;
This now loses the "!(flags & EXT4_ENCRYPT_FL)" test when it sets S_DAX.
Yes, in ext4_should_use_dax(), it has this code
if (ext4_encrypted_inode(inode))
return false;
but that test was what commit 2ee6a576be56 changed in favor of just
checking !(flags & EXT4_ENCRYPT_FL).
So that suggested merge resolkution actually undoes some of that
commit 2ee6a576be56.
Of course,
(flags & EXT4_ENCRYPT_FL)
_should_ be the same as
ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_ENCRYPT);
so It does seem to be harmless, but it's a bit dodgy.
I'll do that suggested resolution, but I have to say that the ext4 bit
testing is incredibly broken and non-obvious. Just as an example:
fs/ext4/ext4.h:#define EXT4_ENCRYPT_FL 0x00000800
/* encrypted file */
fs/ext4/ext4.h: EXT4_INODE_ENCRYPT = 11, /* Encrypted file */
yeah, it's the same bit, but it sure as hell isn't obvious. Why the
two totally different ways to define that data?
Linus
