lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:49:38 -0800 From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com> To: David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dedekind1@...il.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, tytso@....edu, jaegeuk@...nel.org, wd@...x.de, sbabic@...x.de, dengler@...utronix.de, mhalcrow@...gle.com, hch@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/29] fscrypt: Add in-place encryption mode On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:09:05PM +0100, David Gstir wrote: > > > Additionally, after this change the name of the flag FS_WRITE_PATH_FL is > > misleading, since it now really indicates the presence of a bounce buffer rather > > than the "write path". > > I can see no use case for FS_WRITE_PATH_FL other than to indicate that the bounce buffer has to be free'd. Is there any reason why we should not just remove it and check the presence of a bounce buffer by a simple "if (ctx->w.bounce_page)" ? > It appears that the flag is needed because the 'w' (write) and 'r' (read) members are in union. So you can't simply check for 'ctx->w.bounce_page'. Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists