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: <20161128012758.GA6813@google.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:27:58 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:     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, mhalcrow@...gle.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:21:56PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> 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

Shouldn't the branch be rebased to remove the CONFIG_VMAP_STACK fixes which are
already in Linus' tree?

	fscrypto: don't use on-stack buffer for key derivation
	fscrypto: don't use on-stack buffer for filename encryption

Otherwise we'll end up with duplicate commits.

Eric