linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1

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: <698c121c-5d44-1d6f-cab8-0cbaa61e5109@nod.at>
Date:   Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:21:56 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        dedekind1@...il.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
        david@...ma-star.at, wd@...x.de, sbabic@...x.de,
        dengler@...utronix.de, ebiggers@...gle.com, mhalcrow@...gle.com,
        hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1

Ted,

On 27.11.2016 18:52, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 09:18:12AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>
>> Do you want us to address Eric's review comments on top of the fscrypt
>> branch or shall we rebase?
>> I'd suggest the former.
> 
> Yes, let's address them on top of the existing fscrypt branch.  I
> don't consider any of his comments super-serious --- they were mostly
> documentation or comments level changes unless I missed something.

Okay. Then I'll queue UBIFS encryption for the v4.10 merge window.
Just to be sure, I base my UBIFS next tree on your fscrypt tree such that
it will build fine and Linus won't see same commits with a different sha1?
Usually I'm a lucky maintainer and not have to deal with dependencies
between pull requests. :-)

Thanks,
//richard