Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fscrypto: move ioctl processing more fully into common code

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:20:48PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > I guess I'm okay with that, since struct fscrypt_policy won't have any padding > bytes because its members are all bytes. Plus it's marked __packed, though I > think that was a mistake given that the struct isn't stored on disk

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fscrypto: move ioctl processing more fully into common code

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 07:09:01PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 09:54:06AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > In addition, make the common functions do the copies to and from > > userspace rather than duplicating this code within each filesystem, and > > memset the policy to 0

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fscrypto: move ioctl processing more fully into common code

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 09:54:06AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > Multiple bugs were recently fixed in the "set encryption policy" ioctl. > To make it clear that fscrypt_process_policy() and fscrypt_get_policy() > implement ioctls and therefore their implementations must take standard > security and

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fscrypto: move ioctl processing more fully into common code

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:22:07PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Hmm, are you sure the change is worth it? > The patch basically moves a copy_from/to_user() from ext4/f2fs into fscrypto. > Hi Richard, In my opinion consolidating the copy_from/to_user() is worthwhile by itself. The

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fscrypto: move ioctl processing more fully into common code

Eric, On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: > Multiple bugs were recently fixed in the "set encryption policy" ioctl. > To make it clear that fscrypt_process_policy() and fscrypt_get_policy() > implement ioctls and therefore their implementations must take