linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 15:22:41 -0700
From:	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daeho Jeong <daeho.jeong@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 05:30:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:15:03AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > Thank you for the notice.
> > I've been waiting for a comment about the below patch targeted to v4.7 from Ted.
> > Meanwhile, I intended to prepare -next for that patch in advance.
> > Surely, once I get a sense that I need to consider v4.8, I'll drop this patch
> > for -next right away.
> 
> Yeah, I think it would be better for me to take the ext4 "migrate into
> vfs's crypto engine" patch, and at this point, for 4.8.

Fair enough.

> Sorry, I just ran out of time to try to verify that the patch wouldn't
> break anything, and given that we're going to need to wait for
> "fscrypto/f2fs: allow fs-specific key prefix for fs encryption" to go
> upstream.

Agreed. IIUC, let me push the fscrypto/f2fs patch to v4.7 first?

> Do you have any other planned changes for the fscrypto tree planned
> for 4.8.  If not, then perhaps it will be easier if I take the pen for
> any changes needed for fs/crypto, and moving forward, we probably need
> to find ways to make changes where commits specific for fs/crypto
> should be isolated from ext4 or f2fs changes, and as much as possible
> to be backwards compatible so that as we add new features to
> fs/crypto, we don't need to synchronize changes across multiple file
> systems.

I have no planned patch right now, and of course, it must have no problem for
you to treat with further patches.
Also, let me take a look at any missing part again, regarding to your concerns.

Thanks,