On 16/04/2021 05:05, Damien Le Moal wrote:
[...]
> + CRYPT_IV_NO_SECTORS, /* IV calculation does not use sectors
> */
[...]
> - if (ivmode == NULL)
> + if (ivmode == NULL) {
> cc->iv_gen_ops = NULL;
> - else if (strcmp(ivmode, "plain") == 0)
> + set_bit(CRYPT_IV_NO_SECTORS, &cc->cipher_flags);
> + } else if (strcmp(ivmode, "plain") == 0)
[...]
> + if (!test_bit(CRYPT_IV_NO_SECTORS, &cc->cipher_flags)) {
> + DMWARN("Zone append is not supported with sector-based
> IV cyphers");
> + ti->zone_append_not_supported = true;
> + }
I think this negation is hard to follow, at least I had a hard time
reviewing it.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use CRYPT_IV_USE_SECTORS, set the bit
for algorithms that use sectors as IV (like plain64) and then do a
normal
if (test_bit(CRYPT_IV_USE_SECTORS, &cc->cipher_flags)) {
DMWARN("Zone append is not supported with sector-based IV
cyphers");
ti->zone_append_not_supported = true;
}
i.e. without the double negation?
--
dm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
