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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists