Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1401778 > unrolled thread

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-05-16 23:40 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2016-05-17 00:30 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-05-17 02:00 +0200

#1401778 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the ext4 tree

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:15:03AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Thank you for the notice.
> I've been waiting for a comment about the below patch targeted to v4.7 from Ted.
> Meanwhile, I intended to prepare -next for that patch in advance.
> Surely, once I get a sense that I need to consider v4.8, I'll drop this patch
> for -next right away.

Yeah, I think it would be better for me to take the ext4 "migrate into
vfs's crypto engine" patch, and at this point, for 4.8.

Sorry, I just ran out of time to try to verify that the patch wouldn't
break anything, and given that we're going to need to wait for
"fscrypto/f2fs: allow fs-specific key prefix for fs encryption" to go
upstream.

Do you have any other planned changes for the fscrypto tree planned
for 4.8.  If not, then perhaps it will be easier if I take the pen for
any changes needed for fs/crypto, and moving forward, we probably need
to find ways to make changes where commits specific for fs/crypto
should be isolated from ext4 or f2fs changes, and as much as possible
to be backwards compatible so that as we add new features to
fs/crypto, we don't need to synchronize changes across multiple file
systems.

Cheers,

						- Ted

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1401788

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 05:30:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:15:03AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > Thank you for the notice.
> > I've been waiting for a comment about the below patch targeted to v4.7 from Ted.
> > Meanwhile, I intended to prepare -next for that patch in advance.
> > Surely, once I get a sense that I need to consider v4.8, I'll drop this patch
> > for -next right away.
> 
> Yeah, I think it would be better for me to take the ext4 "migrate into
> vfs's crypto engine" patch, and at this point, for 4.8.

Fair enough.

> Sorry, I just ran out of time to try to verify that the patch wouldn't
> break anything, and given that we're going to need to wait for
> "fscrypto/f2fs: allow fs-specific key prefix for fs encryption" to go
> upstream.

Agreed. IIUC, let me push the fscrypto/f2fs patch to v4.7 first?

> Do you have any other planned changes for the fscrypto tree planned
> for 4.8.  If not, then perhaps it will be easier if I take the pen for
> any changes needed for fs/crypto, and moving forward, we probably need
> to find ways to make changes where commits specific for fs/crypto
> should be isolated from ext4 or f2fs changes, and as much as possible
> to be backwards compatible so that as we add new features to
> fs/crypto, we don't need to synchronize changes across multiple file
> systems.

I have no planned patch right now, and of course, it must have no problem for
you to treat with further patches.
Also, let me take a look at any missing part again, regarding to your concerns.

Thanks,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1401822

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:22:41PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Sorry, I just ran out of time to try to verify that the patch wouldn't
> > break anything, and given that we're going to need to wait for
> > "fscrypto/f2fs: allow fs-specific key prefix for fs encryption" to go
> > upstream.
> 
> Agreed. IIUC, let me push the fscrypto/f2fs patch to v4.7 first?

Right --- that's in linux-next already, right?  And currently it's a
combined fscrypto/f2fs patch, which is why I suspect letting it go
into v4.7 first makes sense.  I'll make sure the ext4 move to
fs/crypto will be one of the first development patches for 4.8 (modulo
any urgent bug fixes that need to go into 4.7 final first).

> I have no planned patch right now, and of course, it must have no problem for
> you to treat with further patches.
> Also, let me take a look at any missing part again, regarding to your concerns.

I'm sure there may be some missing pieces around using file system
level crypto for the desktop / server use case.  Some of them are in
how we handle removable thumb drives, for example.

There are definitely some missing pieces about how to handle removable
SD cards for Android, as well, including some kernel-side patches that
are currently living in the unstable portion of the ext4 patch queue.
We never got the design, implementation and kernel<->userspace API's
fully baked, so that's not going upstream any time soon, but all of
this means that we will need to figure out what's the best way to
develop, test, and push fs/crypto changes in the long term.  This may
mean a new git tree with shared maintenance, as one way that we could
do things.

       		       	       	       	     - Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web