linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH V3 07/12] mpage_readpage[s]: Introduce post process callback parameters

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180525200121.GA4613@thunk.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:21 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, ebiggers3@...il.com,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 07/12] mpage_readpage[s]: Introduce post process
 callback parameters

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:31:05PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> This commit introduces a new parameter to mpage_readpage[s]()
> functions. This parameter contains pointers to functions that can be
> used to decrypt data read from the backing device. These are stored in
> the fscrypt_ctx structure and one of these functions is invoked after
> the read operation is completed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Can you describe more of what you are doing here; specifically, you
deleted all of fs/ext4/readpage.c --- was this because you moved
functionality back into fs/mpage.c?  Did you make sure all of the
local changes in fs/ext4/readpage was moved back to fs/mpage.c?

If the goal is to refactor code to remove the need for
fs/ext4/readpage.c, you should probably make that be the first patch
as a prerequisite patch.  And we then need to make sure we don't
accidentally break anyone else who might be using fs/mpage.c.  Saying
a bit more about why you think the refactor is a good thing would also
be useful.

	     	   	       	   	    	  - Ted

P.S.  What version of the kernel was these patches against?  I noticed
the patches weren't applying cleanly to the ext4 git tree.  Given how
invasive these patches are, it's not surprising that they are very
version-sensitive.