Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1

From	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1
Date	2016-11-29 03:30 +0100
Message-ID	<sIGlb-293-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <sDfOI-11Z-91@gated-at.bofh.it> <sHjTH-6yI-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <sIbU5-7vA-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <sIg7o-1WZ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sIiVz-3IN-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 05:27:58PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> Shouldn't the branch be rebased to remove the CONFIG_VMAP_STACK fixes which are
> already in Linus' tree?
> 
> 	fscrypto: don't use on-stack buffer for key derivation
> 	fscrypto: don't use on-stack buffer for filename encryption
> 
> Otherwise we'll end up with duplicate commits.

Given that the ubifs folks are depending on the existing branch,
having duplicate commits is considered an acceptable tradeoff to not
rebasing a published commit that other trees are depending on.

I tell people that the ext4.git dev branch is a rewinding branch, so
people shouldn't be building other trees on top of it unless they are
willing to deal with the fact that it can be rebased.  However, i
didn't give that warning for the fscrypt branch, so I'd much rather
not rewind/rebase it.

						- Ted

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-11-27 19:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1 Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2016-11-27 23:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-11-28 01:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> - 2016-11-28 02:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-11-29 03:30 +0100

csiph-web