From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: add bpf_real_inode() kfunc
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 09:11:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adfPlQrImtuyhMIO@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d889ed2b-ca34-4e95-ae5b-1d66636b515d@linux.alibaba.com>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 10:37:46PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > LBA data (which Linux also confusingly calls intgrity data) would be
> > even simpler and easier to verify. But yes, we need to clearly
> > document what we want.
>
> Yes, you could keep hash / checksum in the extended OOB area, but
> I guess you still don't know if the hash / checksum of the
> particular data can be trusted (or is changed by attackers).
You'd still need to build a full merkle-tree out of them, but storing
the leaf hashes in the extent LBAs means:
- a lot less I/O amplification
- a sane way to actually have verification (including authenticated
encryption) in a writable file system
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-09 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-26 16:53 [PATCH] bpf: add bpf_real_inode() kfunc Christian Brauner
2026-03-26 17:02 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-03-27 5:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-27 6:05 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-04-07 10:25 ` Christian Brauner
2026-04-07 14:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-09 13:19 ` Christian Brauner
2026-04-09 14:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-09 14:37 ` Gao Xiang
2026-04-09 16:11 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2026-04-09 16:42 ` Gao Xiang
2026-04-10 6:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-10 6:46 ` Gao Xiang
2026-04-10 7:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-10 7:29 ` Gao Xiang
2026-03-27 12:19 ` bot+bpf-ci
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=adfPlQrImtuyhMIO@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.