linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] btrfs: add fscrypt support, PART 1

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: <CAPjX3Ff+tUNq18hYExXzY6ZOY2nuGi90abvFTgGmEY5iKn4mgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:14:18 +0100
From: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>
To: dsterba@...e.cz
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, 
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] btrfs: add fscrypt support, PART 1

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 16:04, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 08:36:00PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> > This is a revive of former work [1] of Omar, Sweet Tea and Josef to bring
> > native encryption support to btrfs.
> >
> > It will come in more parts. The first part this time is splitting the simple
> > and isolated stuff out first to reduce the size of the final patchset.
> >
> > Changes since v5 [1] are mostly rebase to the latest for-next and cleaning
> > up the conflicts.
> >
> > The remaining part needs further cleanup and a bit of redesign and it will
> > follow later.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1706116485.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/
> >
> > Josef Bacik (6):
> >   btrfs: add a bio argument to btrfs_csum_one_bio
> >   btrfs: add orig_logical to btrfs_bio
> >   btrfs: don't rewrite ret from inode_permission
> >   btrfs: move inode_to_path higher in backref.c
> >   btrfs: don't search back for dir inode item in INO_LOOKUP_USER
> >   btrfs: set the appropriate free space settings in reconfigure
> >
> > Omar Sandoval (1):
> >   btrfs: disable various operations on encrypted inodes
> >
> > Sweet Tea Dorminy (1):
> >   btrfs: disable verity on encrypted inodes
>
> Please resend the series what is OK for merge right now, I'm counting
> two dropped patches. For the signed-off we might need to add an
> explanation why there are so many or only keep the first one as the
> patch author, the others usually mean only the pass through and not
> really doing any contribution. Eventually there could be Co-developed-by
> but this would need more investigation in the previous patch iterations.
> This can be done once the patches are in for-next.

I just did. The SoBs I just kept as they were in v5 from Josef so I
understand that's what it was agreed on before.

--nX