[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191024012759.GA32358@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:27:59 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@...gle.com>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fscrypt: add support for inline-encryption-optimized
policies
> If and when the vaporware shows up in real hardware, and assuming that
> fscrypt is useful for this hardware, we can name it
> "super_duper_fancy_inline_crypto". :-)
I think you are entirely missing the point. The point is that naming
the option someting related to inline encryption is fundamentally
wrong. It is related to a limitation of existing inline crypto
engines, not related to the fudamental model. And all the other
rambling below don't matter either.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists