From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B85014F90; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730322426; cv=none; b=NE14MRt+x4Yx0kecH7QWgD0EQQrGP0ZXdnmmMz6FfJJE5JTcu0j7WPmgVWSa47yNxsjRRe4+ARAeAlS1mfMOjylUIO4onFrEpRZ5uUvOBy2Af6FDT6PYyXiFAHIbRzf6HASVlayjKzn52a8mXcebGxT/Q35VjrVavFqpehMi0IM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730322426; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1fFvRA8Ti6aNmkII/E3CoPBzL8mG2bnG0r4usRcmrOI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RGUvUtlvPjBLCHHQoAQnCl90OClL56mu3QgmltEWZ1LFQHozCNTqf7rXx7+qjbtym99YTJDcMeNt+ZVbZOzuH/sJhSAmgvT5/rGJhB8ZnlQ3bVHFtoMaMktk2cA8V2B9Ek6/wiWCyDqwhw9QL7MIEn1brTRyYdEOcTa3Y3Co5qc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tyhicks.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tyhicks.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tyhicks.com header.i=@tyhicks.com header.b=Jxq7SdXe; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=YarRtNLf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tyhicks.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tyhicks.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tyhicks.com header.i=@tyhicks.com header.b="Jxq7SdXe"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="YarRtNLf" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3050013801CC; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 17:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 Oct 2024 17:07:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tyhicks.com; h= cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1730322423; x=1730408823; bh=UcDpvOVrCi ePv+GG2jgcrKxzk05VQ6RMJOQDsRm2Wsg=; b=Jxq7SdXexDBEz4imZuZgzjDNjh zdVqiF8jXz7QDZWqB9aWURKKREAgdFOQl++cxBOA2F85/CKeBX7R9JH/g0WDoLJU D6r8z+EDWw/F3p7Naw2ixkYO4FLI3HZTGuXD8aJF5DIUKZuM/eIVE20JzoNlSIBb WY14DJZiwEkLT/sAzbYEIBbmIDHTixEMGBtMtJtVroMAfeJ9w+M/KtBFE1MbsP9a avff/fHpUzCmhAIHIci424C0q76rKJYfGK/Hsf0s5J4g8Too18mXco4dDcaqPvVy ob2dXahle2m7NZ7MZk+KpSP51jTxF814Vwgqb5pNjWQnZi2OKUDsLE9HjR8Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1730322423; x=1730408823; bh=UcDpvOVrCiePv+GG2jgcrKxzk05VQ6RMJOQ DsRm2Wsg=; b=YarRtNLf5Bgv3nudJgNkE9rqq4RFaptlzFLiK9mjf9wXmmR5elo ZwWSYtsx/BAsFxFh8KgJf+3273HeHfuec9e46QHabHPYxM80lQM4rIBTAfxIdH02 8AeJonT5m3tvL2t8y3K46+96gv1Fxcj3jwxx2dE18BGYQzqk5nSMh+XVqmP+fkLx tl40EyUpCBfWQ6ZmpShDd59mdbC/k0B9SBKFouPb6edmPRsBmPRW0VmI+WzQGTtN T/jVubRn2XaogBi1LY0H3gQPYFuM7cq86Ac1K6AusVKMsLj/56/k/802GSrXPLnn hhgOKliCZFY1f77Z2Zhvv3LbmICO1TKfvSg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdekfedgudeggecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddv necuhfhrohhmpefvhihlvghrucfjihgtkhhsuceotghouggvsehthihhihgtkhhsrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvhedvtddthfefhfdtgfelheefgefgudejueevkedu veekvdegjedttdefgfelieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpegtohguvgesthihhhhitghkshdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohep jedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepthihthhsohesmhhithdrvgguuh dprhgtphhtthhopegrrhhnugesrghrnhgusgdruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepfihilhhlhies ihhnfhhrrgguvggrugdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegrrhhnugeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorh hgpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrmhhivghnrdhlvghmohgrlhesohhpvghnshhouhhrtggvrdif uggtrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepvggtrhihphhtfhhssehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrd horhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheplhhinhhugidqkhgvrhhnvghlsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghl rdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i78e14604:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 17:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:06:49 -0500 From: Tyler Hicks To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Matthew Wilcox , Arnd Bergmann , Damien Le Moal , ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ecryptfs is unmaintained and untested Message-ID: References: <20241028141955.639633-1-arnd@kernel.org> <20241029043328.GB3213@mit.edu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241029043328.GB3213@mit.edu> On 2024-10-28 21:33:28, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:50:37PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024, at 15:02, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > This comment has been there since June 2021, so I think we can just > > > delete ecryptfs now? > > > > I have no opinion on removing ecryptfs, but I don't how possibly > > removing it is related to the patch I sent, as far as I can tell > > it just means it relies on both CONFIG_BLOCK and CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD > > then. > > > > Is there any indication that the last users that had files on > > ecryptfs are unable to update their kernels? > > Debian is still shipping ecryptfs-utils and is building and including > the ecryptfs kernel module in their distro kernel.` > > So it seems likely that there are probably a non-zero (although > probably relatively small) number of ecryptfs users out there. It would be good to discuss how we can get the message out to users to migrate off of eCryptfs so that functionality can be reduced and eventually it can be removed. What do folks think about the following? 1. Print loud warnings at mount time that eCryptfs is deprecated and give a specific date when write support will be removed. 2. Remove write support at that date, while retaining read-only support to allow any lagging users to move their data to fscrypt or other alternatives. 3. Print loud warnings at mount that eCryptfs will be removed and give a specific date. 4. Remove it. Suggestions on lead times for #2 and #4 would be appreciated. Tyler