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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox