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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 16:26:00 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <>
        Lukas Czerner <>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <>,
        Jeff Layton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 03:36:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:08:50PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > We can either take all these patches through the fscrypt tree, or we can
> > take them in multiple cycles as follows:
> > 
> >     1. patch 1 via ext4, patch 2 via f2fs, patch 3-4 via fscrypt
> >     2. patch 5 via ext4, patch 6 via f2fs
> >     3. patch 7 via fscrypt
> > 
> > Ted and Jaegeuk, let me know what you prefer.
> In order to avoid patch conflicts with other patch series, what I'd
> prefer is to take them in multiple cycles.  I can take patch #1 in my
> initial pull request to Linus, and then do a second pull request to
> Linus with patch #5 post -rc1 or -rc2 (depending on when patches #3
> and #4 hit Linus's tree).
> Does that sound good?

That basically sounds fine.  I've just sent out v3 of this series, with the fix
for the memory leak in parse_apply_sb_mount_options() as its own patch.  That
patch can be applied now too, so you can take patches 1-2 of the v3 series in
your initial pull request.

- Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists