On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:24:33PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 22/05/09 04:40PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > A couple corrections I'll include in the next version:
>
> Need few clarifications. Could you please help explain what am I missing here?
>
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:08:55PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > + if (fc->purpose == FS_CONTEXT_FOR_RECONFIGURE) {
> > > + if (fscrypt_dummy_policies_equal(&sbi->s_dummy_enc_policy,
> > > + &ctx->dummy_enc_policy))
> > > + return 0;
> > > ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_WARNING,
> > > - "Can't set test_dummy_encryption on remount");
> > > + "Can't set or change test_dummy_encryption on
> > > remount");
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> >
> > I think this needs to be 'fc->purpose == FS_CONTEXT_FOR_RECONFIGURE ||
> > fscrypt_is_dummy_policy_set(&sbi->s_dummy_enc_policy)', since ext4 can parse
> > mount options from both s_mount_opts and the regular mount options.
>
> Sorry, I am missing something here. Could you please help me understand why
> do we need the other OR case which you mentioned above i.e.
> "|| fscrypt_is_dummy_policy_set(&sbi->s_dummy_enc_policy)"
>
> So maybe to put it this way, when will it be the case where
> fscrypt_is_dummy_policy_set(&sbi->s_dummy_enc_policy) is true and it is not a
> FS_CONTEXT_FOR_RECONFIGURE case?
The case where test_dummy_encryption is present in both the mount options stored
in the superblock and in the regular mount options. See how __ext4_fill_super()
parses and applies each source of options separately.
> Also just in case if I did miss something that also means the comment after
> this
> case will not be valid anymore?
> i.e.
> /*
> * fscrypt_add_test_dummy_key() technically changes the super_block,
> so
> * it technically should be delayed until ext4_apply_options() like
> the
> * other changes. But since we never get here for remounts (see
> above),
> * and this is the last chance to report errors, we do it here.
> */
> err = fscrypt_add_test_dummy_key(sb, &ctx->dummy_enc_policy);
> if (err)
> ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_WARNING,
> "Error adding test dummy encryption key [%d]", err);
> return err;
That comment will still be correct.
>
> >
> > > +static void ext4_apply_test_dummy_encryption(struct ext4_fs_context *ctx,
> > > + struct super_block *sb)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!fscrypt_is_dummy_policy_set(&ctx->dummy_enc_policy))
> > > + return;
> >
> > To handle remounts correctly, this needs to be
> > '!fscrypt_is_dummy_policy_set(&ctx->dummy_enc_policy) ||
> > fscrypt_is_dummy_policy_set(&EXT4_SB(sb)->s_dummy_enc_policy)'.
>
> Why?
> Isn't it true that in remount we should update EXT4_SB(sb)->s_dummy_enc_policy
> only when ctx->dummy_enc_policy is set. If EXT4_SB(sb)->s_dummy_enc_policy is
> already set and ctx->dummy_enc_policy is not set, that means it's a remount
> case with no mount
> opts in which case ext4 should continue to have the same value of
> EXT4_SB(sb)->s_dummy_enc_policy?
struct fscrypt_dummy_policy includes dynamically allocated memory, so
overwriting it without first freeing it would be a memory leak.
- Eric
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
