On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 06:07:26PM +0000, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > On Fri, 2025-11-14 at 14:02 +0800, Guan-Chun Wu wrote: > > Remove the ceph_base64_encode() and ceph_base64_decode() functions and > > replace their usage with the generic base64_encode() and base64_decode() > > helpers from lib/base64. > > > > This eliminates the custom implementation in Ceph, reduces code > > duplication, and relies on the shared Base64 code in lib. > > The helpers preserve RFC 3501-compliant Base64 encoding without padding, > > so there are no functional changes. > > > > This change also improves performance: encoding is about 2.7x faster and > > decoding achieves 43-52x speedups compared to the previous local > > implementation. > > > > Reviewed-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Guan-Chun Wu <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/ceph/crypto.c | 60 ++++-------------------------------------------- > > fs/ceph/crypto.h | 6 +---- > > fs/ceph/dir.c | 5 ++-- > > fs/ceph/inode.c | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/crypto.c b/fs/ceph/crypto.c > > index 7026e794813c..b6016dcffbb6 100644 > > --- a/fs/ceph/crypto.c > > +++ b/fs/ceph/crypto.c > > @@ -15,59 +15,6 @@ > > #include "mds_client.h" > > #include "crypto.h" > > > > -/* > > - * The base64url encoding used by fscrypt includes the '_' character, > > which may > > - * cause problems in snapshot names (which can not start with '_'). Thus, > > we > > - * used the base64 encoding defined for IMAP mailbox names (RFC 3501) > > instead, > > - * which replaces '-' and '_' by '+' and ','. > > - */ > > -static const char base64_table[65] = > > - "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+,"; > > - > > -int ceph_base64_encode(const u8 *src, int srclen, char *dst) > > -{ > > - u32 ac = 0; > > - int bits = 0; > > - int i; > > - char *cp = dst; > > - > > - for (i = 0; i < srclen; i++) { > > - ac = (ac << 8) | src[i]; > > - bits += 8; > > - do { > > - bits -= 6; > > - *cp++ = base64_table[(ac >> bits) & 0x3f]; > > - } while (bits >= 6); > > - } > > - if (bits) > > - *cp++ = base64_table[(ac << (6 - bits)) & 0x3f]; > > - return cp - dst; > > -} > > - > > -int ceph_base64_decode(const char *src, int srclen, u8 *dst) > > -{ > > - u32 ac = 0; > > - int bits = 0; > > - int i; > > - u8 *bp = dst; > > - > > - for (i = 0; i < srclen; i++) { > > - const char *p = strchr(base64_table, src[i]); > > - > > - if (p == NULL || src[i] == 0) > > - return -1; > > - ac = (ac << 6) | (p - base64_table); > > - bits += 6; > > - if (bits >= 8) { > > - bits -= 8; > > - *bp++ = (u8)(ac >> bits); > > - } > > - } > > - if (ac & ((1 << bits) - 1)) > > - return -1; > > - return bp - dst; > > -} > > - > > static int ceph_crypt_get_context(struct inode *inode, void *ctx, size_t > > len) > > { > > struct ceph_inode_info *ci = ceph_inode(inode); > > @@ -318,7 +265,7 @@ int ceph_encode_encrypted_dname(struct inode *parent, > > char *buf, int elen) > > } > > > > /* base64 encode the encrypted name */ > > - elen = ceph_base64_encode(cryptbuf, len, p); > > + elen = base64_encode(cryptbuf, len, p, false, BASE64_IMAP); > > doutc(cl, "base64-encoded ciphertext name = %.*s\n", elen, p); > > > > /* To understand the 240 limit, see CEPH_NOHASH_NAME_MAX comments */ > > @@ -412,7 +359,8 @@ int ceph_fname_to_usr(const struct ceph_fname *fname, > > struct fscrypt_str *tname, > > tname = &_tname; > > } > > > > - declen = ceph_base64_decode(name, name_len, tname->name); > > + declen = base64_decode(name, name_len, > > + tname->name, false, BASE64_IMAP); > > if (declen <= 0) { > > ret = -EIO; > > goto out; > > @@ -426,7 +374,7 @@ int ceph_fname_to_usr(const struct ceph_fname *fname, > > struct fscrypt_str *tname, > > > > ret = fscrypt_fname_disk_to_usr(dir, 0, 0, &iname, oname); > > if (!ret && (dir != fname->dir)) { > > - char tmp_buf[CEPH_BASE64_CHARS(NAME_MAX)]; > > + char tmp_buf[BASE64_CHARS(NAME_MAX)]; > > > > name_len = snprintf(tmp_buf, sizeof(tmp_buf), "_%.*s_%ld", > > oname->len, oname->name, dir->i_ino); > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/crypto.h b/fs/ceph/crypto.h > > index 23612b2e9837..b748e2060bc9 100644 > > --- a/fs/ceph/crypto.h > > +++ b/fs/ceph/crypto.h > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > > > > #include <crypto/sha2.h> > > #include <linux/fscrypt.h> > > +#include <linux/base64.h> > > > > #define CEPH_FSCRYPT_BLOCK_SHIFT 12 > > #define CEPH_FSCRYPT_BLOCK_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << CEPH_FSCRYPT_BLOCK_SHIFT) > > @@ -89,11 +90,6 @@ static inline u32 ceph_fscrypt_auth_len(struct > > ceph_fscrypt_auth *fa) > > */ > > #define CEPH_NOHASH_NAME_MAX (180 - SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE) > > > > -#define CEPH_BASE64_CHARS(nbytes) DIV_ROUND_UP((nbytes) * 4, 3) > > - > > -int ceph_base64_encode(const u8 *src, int srclen, char *dst); > > -int ceph_base64_decode(const char *src, int srclen, u8 *dst); > > - > > void ceph_fscrypt_set_ops(struct super_block *sb); > > > > void ceph_fscrypt_free_dummy_policy(struct ceph_fs_client *fsc); > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/dir.c b/fs/ceph/dir.c > > index d18c0eaef9b7..0fa7c7777242 100644 > > --- a/fs/ceph/dir.c > > +++ b/fs/ceph/dir.c > > @@ -998,13 +998,14 @@ static int prep_encrypted_symlink_target(struct > > ceph_mds_request *req, > > if (err) > > goto out; > > > > - req->r_path2 = kmalloc(CEPH_BASE64_CHARS(osd_link.len) + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > > + req->r_path2 = kmalloc(BASE64_CHARS(osd_link.len) + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!req->r_path2) { > > err = -ENOMEM; > > goto out; > > } > > > > - len = ceph_base64_encode(osd_link.name, osd_link.len, req->r_path2); > > + len = base64_encode(osd_link.name, osd_link.len, > > + req->r_path2, false, BASE64_IMAP); > > req->r_path2[len] = '\0'; > > out: > > fscrypt_fname_free_buffer(&osd_link); > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/inode.c b/fs/ceph/inode.c > > index a6e260d9e420..b691343cb7f1 100644 > > --- a/fs/ceph/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/ceph/inode.c > > @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static int decode_encrypted_symlink(struct > > ceph_mds_client *mdsc, > > if (!sym) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > - declen = ceph_base64_decode(encsym, enclen, sym); > > + declen = base64_decode(encsym, enclen, sym, false, BASE64_IMAP); > > if (declen < 0) { > > pr_err_client(cl, > > "can't decode symlink (%d). Content: %.*s\n", > > Looks good! > > Reviewed-by: Viacheslav Dubeyko <[email protected]> > > Have you run xfstests for this patchset?
Hi Slava, Thanks for the review. I haven't run xfstests on this patchset yet. Best regards, Guan-Chun > > Thanks, > Slava.
