On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:06:40AM -0600, Tyler Hicks wrote: > Hey Jeffrey and Dan - thanks for the patch! Unfortunately, I think this > would allow the eCryptfs inode's nlink count to get out of sync with the > lower inode's nlink count in the case of direct manipulation to the > lower filesystem.
Hmm. What if I instead synchronize it before calling vfs_unlink(), then call drop_nlink() if vfs_unlink() succeeds? > Is the condition that you're trying to fix a result of going through the > this code path? > > ecryptfs_unlink() -> ecryptfs_do_unlink() -> vfs_unlink() -> nfs_unlink() -> > nfs_sillyrename() -> nfs_async_unlink() Yes, that is the code path that causes it. V/R, Jeffrey Mitchell
