From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 7425022ACE3; Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755268102; cv=none; b=Z/rntE2sW3xxNNvGS11EyHHwJjvqneZJpoLqDfPEXM5q99PO3PG8Jnb8MuagpIgHoPVWj8tuqwwqG3n+iDvAqyvITSCY2jjUQVpaqZIjhaJHIg7n+AF2v6KNIKnp978YfJg7IQg7MlF4x6Vl2nYrBS0lnvMDKMklXLnABdN7RVE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755268102; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NjlA2V0nQx0tBL4rAiZ29YI48biAV1hmLhasXfWKjKM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gEFTh7OvubPuOaia+v9NweX9aTPIi5hp9v8P/vsREXGlUqNIidtjfwBH5zkJ8r3344JQVfEANyn2KxH1iZAHS9INzPO8KzQieXl7Q9X3iMI1a0BpMpvHVA9qyjXHLaOdhFnNmRLs3pRULRQ0Ddrkq4XJkA7z1GnkN3pr6k0djjM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Vi/jyHyC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Vi/jyHyC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0BE4C4CEF5; Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:28:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755268102; bh=NjlA2V0nQx0tBL4rAiZ29YI48biAV1hmLhasXfWKjKM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Vi/jyHyCpW3IS1hb6zQ4jJ+oAYD0DXsY2Im5ys51K44DIEZQHnGkTVraWsoFcqbwC JxJq03+C9R3fjpoMc9nQd4QG10bfgmJDeOjpatQAYOyzqylhQ1n0AYRglhszfcGetS FjhIcW7orUVId79eVQDk4m6yVnMF8nfROWLKKC2DlG1gQDlsTg5ndmXNr61rMo4qLc FwgVzCRxDCjKmjVaJfryczmqUHzyfxIQC23QMXOHkNvThADLMLAyeNAgSC/7uGhDd7 iOBJ7p+fW43/8ExrYdQawHBPv3mNoLE+f/MSAzjfGGQ+rUABw1kKle6THgz2+iucuP LOrp6gISP0oAQ== Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 16:28:17 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Eric Biggers Cc: linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] Move fscrypt and fsverity info out of struct inode Message-ID: <20250815-pension-geleugnet-0b0502f0555c@brauner> References: <20250810075706.172910-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20250810-tortur-gerammt-8d9ffd00da19@brauner> <20250810090302.GA1274@sol> <20250811-distribuieren-nilpferd-bef047fa7992@brauner> <20250811-unbedacht-vollmond-1a805b76212b@brauner> <20250811163907.GA1268@sol> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250811163907.GA1268@sol> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:39:07AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:34:35PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:17:01PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 02:03:02AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 10:47:32AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Ah, sorry about that. When I started looking at it again yesterday > > > > there turned out to be way too many cleanups and fixes I wanted to make > > > > (beyond the comments I gave earlier), and I hadn't seen activity from > > > > you on it in a while. So I figured it would be easier to just send a > > > > series myself. But I should have asked you first, sorry. > > > > > > So I started working on this pretty much right away. And I had planned > > > on sending it out rather soon but then thought to better wait for -rc1 > > > to be released because I saw you had a bunch of crypto changes in for > > > -rc1 that would've caused merge conflicts. It's no big deal overall but > > > I just don't like that I wasted massaging all that stuff. So next time a > > > heads-up would be nice. Thank you! > > > > I just pulled the series and now I see that you also changed the > > authorship of every single patch in the series from me to you and put my > > Co-developed-by in there. > > > > I mean I acknowledge that there's changes between the branches and > > there's some function renaming but it's not to the point where > > authorship should be changed. And if you think that's necessary than it > > would be something you would want to talk to me about first. > > > > I don't care about the stats but it was always hugely frustrating to me > > when I started kernel development when senior kernel developers waltzed > > in and thought they'd just take things over so I try very hard to not do > > that unless this is agreed upon first. > > If you want to keep the authorship that's fine with me. Make sure > you've checked the diff: the diff between v4 and v5 is larger than the > diff between the base and either version. And as I mentioned, I rewrote > the commit messages and divided some of the changes into commits > differently as well. If the situation was flipped, I wouldn't want to > be kept as the author. But I realize there are different opinions about > this sort of thing, and I'm totally fine with whatever you prefer. It's not that I oppose it per se it's just that it would be nice to have gotten a heads-up about both the rewrite and the authorship change. (Sorry, still on vacation and so answers are delayed.)