On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 10:47:32AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 12:56:53AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > This is a cleaned-up implementation of moving the i_crypt_info and > > i_verity_info pointers out of 'struct inode' and into the fs-specific > > part of the inode, as proposed previously by Christian at > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250723-work-inode-fscrypt-v4-0-c8e11488a...@kernel.org/ > > > > The high-level concept is still the same: fs/crypto/ and fs/verity/ > > locate the pointer by adding an offset to the address of struct inode. > > The offset is retrieved from fscrypt_operations or fsverity_operations. > > > > I've cleaned up a lot of the details, including: > > - Grouped changes into patches differently > > - Rewrote commit messages and comments to be clearer > > - Adjusted code formatting to be consistent with existing code > > - Removed unneeded #ifdefs > > - Improved choice and location of VFS_WARN_ON_ONCE() statements > > - Added missing kerneldoc for ubifs_inode::i_crypt_info > > - Moved field initialization to init_once functions when they exist > > - Improved ceph offset calculation and removed unneeded static_asserts > > - fsverity_get_info() now checks IS_VERITY() instead of v_ops > > - fscrypt_put_encryption_info() no longer checks IS_ENCRYPTED(), since I > > no longer think it's actually correct there. > > - verity_data_blocks() now keeps doing a raw dereference > > - Dropped fscrypt_set_inode_info() > > - Renamed some functions > > - Do offset calculation using int, so we don't rely on unsigned overflow > > - And more. > > > > For v4 and earlier, see > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250723-work-inode-fscrypt-v4-0-c8e11488a...@kernel.org/ > > > > I'd like to take this series through the fscrypt tree for 6.18. > > (fsverity normally has a separate tree, but by choosing just one tree > > for this, we'll avoid conflicts in some places.) > > Woh woh. First, I had a cleaned up version ready for v6.18 so if you > plan on taking over someone's series and resend then maybe ask the > author first whether that's ok or not. I haven't seen you do that. You > just caused duplicated work for no reason.
Ah, sorry about that. When I started looking at it again yesterday there turned out to be way too many cleanups and fixes I wanted to make (beyond the comments I gave earlier), and I hadn't seen activity from you on it in a while. So I figured it would be easier to just send a series myself. But I should have asked you first, sorry. > And second general infrastructure changes that touch multiple fses and > generic fs infrastructure I very much want to go through VFS trees. > We'll simply use a shared tree. So you'd like to discontinue the fscrypt and fsverity trees? That's what they are for: general infrastructure shared by multiple filesystems. Or is this comment just for this series in particular, presumably because it touches 'struct inode'? - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
