linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 7/7] ufs: qcom: add support for wrapped keys

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: <20250210162118.GA1264@sol.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:21:18 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Gaurav Kashyap <quic_gaurkash@...cinc.com>,
	linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/7] ufs: qcom: add support for wrapped keys

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:14:45AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:00:41PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Wire up the wrapped key support for ufs-qcom by implementing the needed
> > methods in struct blk_crypto_ll_ops and setting the appropriate flag in
> > blk_crypto_profile::key_types_supported.
> > 
> > For more information about this feature and how to use it, refer to
> > the sections about hardware-wrapped keys in
> > Documentation/block/inline-encryption.rst and
> > Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst.
> > 
> > Based on patches by Gaurav Kashyap <quic_gaurkash@...cinc.com>.
> > Reworked to use the custom crypto profile support.
> > 
> 
> Instead of mentioning the contribution in description, you should use relevant
> tags IMO.

I had to rewrite this patch from scratch, and it is a much simpler
implementation of what was originally 6 patches.  So in this case I don't think
it would make sense to keep authorship or co-developed-by.

- Eric