linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

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: <ed44777e-96a1-bfd6-d07d-5c1ca231086a@nod.at>
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:18:57 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc:     David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jaegeuk@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
        hch@...radead.org, arnd@...db.de, dedekind1@...il.com,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, ebiggers@...gle.com,
        rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On 16.12.2016 23:14, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:48:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
>>>> @@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode, pgoff_t lblk,
>>>> 		err = do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk,
>>>> 					ZERO_PAGE(0), ciphertext_page,
>>>> 					PAGE_SIZE, 0, GFP_NOFS);
>>>> +		err = fscrypt_bio_submit_page(inode, pblk, ciphertext_page);
>>>
>>> Any specific reason why you didn't just move the whole fscrypt_zeroout_range() to bio.c?
>>
>> The function depends other internal functions of crypto.c which I didn't want to
>> export.
>> At the end of the day it's a matter of taste. I found it less ugly to keep
>> fscrypt_zeroout_range() in crypto.c than exposing internal stuff.
>>
> 
> Hmm, it still seems weird to define fscrypt_zeroout_range() when it can't
> actually be used.  It looks like the problem is specifically the use of
> alloc_bounce_page() and do_page_crypto().  Would it be that bad to make those
> available in fscrypt_internal.h (not exported to filesystems)?

We can also hide it under a #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK.

Exporting internal functions is also an option. As I said, I found the current
variant the least ugly one.

Thanks,
//richard