linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups

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: <Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu>
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 15:36:05 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups

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?

						- Ted