Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 10:53:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Another question about the choice of IV. If the page index in CPU order is > > (supposed to be) used as the IV, doesn't make the on-disk format of the >

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 01:48:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > BTW, as far as switching ext4 to use the shared code in fs/crypto --- > > I'm hoping to get that done for the next merge window. There are a 2 > > or 3 patches to fix some recently discovered bugs that I'll need to > > push into

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >> I also wonder if the xts_tweak should perhaps have both the page >> offset _and_ the inode number in it. Both ext4 and f2fs specify that >> xts tweak size to be 16 bytes, and right now fill the last 8 bytes >> with zero.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 01:04:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > After then, as Dave suggested, we needed to move the crypto libraries into > > common fs/crypto, so that other filesystems can support that in common

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > After then, as Dave suggested, we needed to move the crypto libraries into > common fs/crypto, so that other filesystems can support that in common sense. > > Please check the below threads about this history. >

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 10:53:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Good catch, Eric. > > While waiting for explanations, I've committed the change to move back > to just the page index. Thank you. +Ted This was originally introduced in EXT4 for AOSP last year. At that time, Ted suggested that

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

Good catch, Eric. While waiting for explanations, I've committed the change to move back to just the page index. On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Another question about the choice of IV. If the page index in CPU order is > (supposed to be) used as

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

It seems strange to me --- a "renaming" commit made IVs start getting reused, weakening the encryption. Do you have an explanation for how this change got introduced? Another question about the choice of IV. If the page index in CPU order is (supposed to be) used as the IV, doesn't make the

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 01:10:07AM -0500, Eric Biggers wrote: > Why was the XTS tweak initialization changed in commit 0b81d0779072 ("fs > crypto: > move per-file encryption from f2fs tree to fs/crypto")? > > Old code: > >memcpy(xts_tweak, , sizeof(index)); >

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > I made another pull request which removes the previous wrong commits and > > adds > > a single commit to migrate the f2fs crypto into fs/crypto. > >

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > I made another pull request which removes the previous wrong commits and adds > a single commit to migrate the f2fs crypto into fs/crypto. Ok, merged. Please double-check the end result, but since most of the skcipher

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: \> > Then later, you add the Makefile and Kconfig rules to start building > the files, but still nothing *uses* it. > > And then, after that, you have one commit that removes the old code, > and switches over to

Re: [f2fs-dev] [GIT PULL] f2fs updates for v4.6

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > Note that, I did cherry-pick one patch and add another patch to resolve the > conflict against recent crypto changes. *please* don't do things like this! Now I have a conflict _anyway_, and because you added extra