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: <20190820051236.GE159846@architecture4>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:12:36 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To:     Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     <tytso@....edu>, <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org>, <chandanrmail@...il.com>,
        <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        <yuchao0@...wei.com>, <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 5/8] f2fs: Use read_callbacks for decrypting file data

Hi Chandan,

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:35:29AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2019 11:48 AM Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > F2FS has a copy of "post read processing" code using which encrypted
> > file data is decrypted. This commit replaces it to make use of the
> > generic read_callbacks facility.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> Hi Eric and Ted,
> 
> Looks like F2FS requires a lot more flexiblity than what can be offered by
> read callbacks i.e.
> 
> 1. F2FS wants to make use of its own workqueue for decryption, verity and
>    decompression.
> 2. F2FS' decompression code is not an FS independent entity like fscrypt and
>    fsverity. Hence they would need Filesystem specific callback functions to
>    be invoked from "read callbacks". 
> 
> Hence I would suggest that we should drop F2FS changes made in this
> patchset. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Add a word, I have some little concern about post read procession order
a bit as I mentioned before, because I'd like to move common EROFS
decompression code out in the future as well for other fses to use
after we think it's mature enough.

It seems the current code mainly addresses eliminating duplicated code,
therefore I have no idea about that...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> -- 
> chandan
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ