linux-kernel - Re: ecryptfs is unmaintained and untested

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: <20241029043328.GB3213@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:33:28 -0700
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <code@...icks.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ecryptfs is unmaintained and untested

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:50:37PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024, at 15:02, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > This comment has been there since June 2021, so I think we can just
> > delete ecryptfs now?
> 
> I have no opinion on removing ecryptfs, but I don't how possibly
> removing it is related to the patch I sent, as far as I can tell
> it just means it relies on both CONFIG_BLOCK and CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD
> then.
> 
> Is there any indication that the last users that had files on
> ecryptfs are unable to update their kernels?

Debian is still shipping ecryptfs-utils and is building and including
the ecryptfs kernel module in their distro kernel.`

So it seems likely that there are probably a non-zero (although
probably relatively small) number of ecryptfs users out there.

	 	    	   	     	      - Ted