linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add the test_dummy

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 07:38:25 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add the test_dummy_encryption key on-demand

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:21 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I was going back and forth between this solution and instead having ext4
> and f2fs call fscrypt_destroy_keyring() on ->fill_super failure.  (Or
> using Linus's suggestion of adding the test dummy key as the very last
> step of ->fill_super.)  It does seem ideal to add the key at mount time,
> but I ended up going with this solution instead because it reduces the
> number of things the individual filesystems have to handle.

Well, the diffstat certainly looks nice:

>  8 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

with that

>  fs/super.c                  |  1 -

removing the offending line that made Dan's static detection tool so
unhappy, so this all looks lovely to me.

Thanks,
             Linus