[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180327194056.GD15608@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:40:56 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 07/11] fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed
out blocks of a page
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:52:54PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > Also, it looks like when you renamed the *_page fscrypt functions to
> > *_blocks, on the write side, a bounce page is still being used for
> > each block. So so an an architecture which has 64k pages, and we are
> > writing to a file sytem with 4k blocks, to write a 64k page, the
> > fscrypt layer will have to allocate 16 64k bounce pages to write a
> > single 64k page to an encrypted file. Am I missing something?
> >
>
> ext4_bio_write_page() invokes the new fscrypt_encrypt_block() function for
> each block of the page that has been marked with "Async write". For all blocks
> of the page that needs to be written to the disk, we pass the same bounce page
> as an argument to fscrypt_encrypt_block().
Thanks for the explanation. I do wonder if the proper thing to export
from the fscrypt layer is fscrypt_encrypt_page(), since for all file
systems, the only thing which really makes sense is to read and write
a full page at a time, since we cache things at the page cache a full
page a time. So instead of teaching each file system how to use
fscrypt_{encrypt,decrypt}_block, maybe push that into the fscrypt
layer, and implement a new fscrypt_encrypt_page() which calls
fs_encrypt_block()?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists