Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] Move fscrypt and fsverity info out of struct inode

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 12:56:53AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> This is a cleaned-up implementation of moving the i_crypt_info and
> i_verity_info pointers out of 'struct inode' and into the fs-specific
> part of the inode, as proposed previously by Christian at
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250723-work-inode-fscrypt-v4-0-c8e11488a0e6@kernel.org/
> 
> The high-level concept is still the same: fs/crypto/ and fs/verity/
> locate the pointer by adding an offset to the address of struct inode.
> The offset is retrieved from fscrypt_operations or fsverity_operations.
> 
> I've cleaned up a lot of the details, including:
> - Grouped changes into patches differently
> - Rewrote commit messages and comments to be clearer
> - Adjusted code formatting to be consistent with existing code
> - Removed unneeded #ifdefs
> - Improved choice and location of VFS_WARN_ON_ONCE() statements
> - Added missing kerneldoc for ubifs_inode::i_crypt_info
> - Moved field initialization to init_once functions when they exist
> - Improved ceph offset calculation and removed unneeded static_asserts
> - fsverity_get_info() now checks IS_VERITY() instead of v_ops
> - fscrypt_put_encryption_info() no longer checks IS_ENCRYPTED(), since I
>   no longer think it's actually correct there.
> - verity_data_blocks() now keeps doing a raw dereference
> - Dropped fscrypt_set_inode_info() 
> - Renamed some functions
> - Do offset calculation using int, so we don't rely on unsigned overflow
> - And more.
> 
> For v4 and earlier, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250723-work-inode-fscrypt-v4-0-c8e11488a0e6@kernel.org/
> 
> I'd like to take this series through the fscrypt tree for 6.18.
> (fsverity normally has a separate tree, but by choosing just one tree
> for this, we'll avoid conflicts in some places.)

Woh woh. First, I had a cleaned up version ready for v6.18 so if you
plan on taking over someone's series and resend then maybe ask the
author first whether that's ok or not. I haven't seen you do that. You
just caused duplicated work for no reason.

And second general infrastructure changes that touch multiple fses and
generic fs infrastructure I very much want to go through VFS trees.
We'll simply use a shared tree.