linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/29] fscrypt: Add in-place encryption mode

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: <20161127064938.GC34163@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:49:38 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
To:     David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        dedekind1@...il.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, tytso@....edu,
        jaegeuk@...nel.org, wd@...x.de, sbabic@...x.de,
        dengler@...utronix.de, mhalcrow@...gle.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/29] fscrypt: Add in-place encryption mode

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:09:05PM +0100, David Gstir wrote:
> 
> > Additionally, after this change the name of the flag FS_WRITE_PATH_FL is
> > misleading, since it now really indicates the presence of a bounce buffer rather
> > than the "write path".
> 
> I can see no use case for FS_WRITE_PATH_FL other than to indicate that the bounce buffer has to be free'd. Is there any reason why we should not just remove it and check the presence of a bounce buffer by a simple "if (ctx->w.bounce_page)" ?
> 

It appears that the flag is needed because the 'w' (write) and 'r' (read)
members are in union.  So you can't simply check for 'ctx->w.bounce_page'.

Eric