Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

["Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

On 2016-03-01 23:48, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/02/2016 02:23 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:59:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:46:16AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>> We'll definitely move in line with the common API over time.  Thanks
>>>> Anand for starting this!
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer that we keep it per-subvolume for now, just because
>>>> subvolumes are so cheap and because it seems like a better collection
>>>> point for general use.  But as the other filesystems add features we'll
>>>> make sure and keep parity with what users expect.
>>>
>>> We already have per-file encryption in f2fs and ext4, and both have
>>> a compatible userspace API and ABI.  It would be a pitty to deviate
>>> from that intead of reusing it, and if needed extending it.
>>
>> I wasn't very clear here sorry.  per-subvolume is my favorite way, but
>> we'll go with the existing ABIs as well.  There's no reason to be
>> different.
>
>
> Thanks for commenting.
>
> btrfs encryption creates attributes per file its named
>
>    btrfs.encrypt
>
> But when we have a standard attribute for file encryption
> this should be updated.
>
> I wrote a design approaches/principles on which btrfs encryption
> is based on.. and it here
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fq9snDM_4ikn44UDNErjHqKXgZHukiJWS4Il3qVhm3M/edit?usp=sharing

FWIW, a new version of the patch series pushing the ext4/F2FS API up to 
the VFS layer got posted on LKML just the other day.  Based on the level 
of review, it looks like it may end up in 4.6.