On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:14:28PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Hmm, it still seems weird to define fscrypt_zeroout_range() when it can't
> actually be used. It looks like the problem is specifically the use of
> alloc_bounce_page() and do_page_crypto(). Would it be that bad to make those
>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:14:28PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Hmm, it still seems weird to define fscrypt_zeroout_range() when it can't
> actually be used. It looks like the problem is specifically the use of
> alloc_bounce_page() and do_page_crypto(). Would it be that bad to make those
>
On 16.12.2016 23:14, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:48:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
@@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode,
pgoff_t lblk,
err = do_page_crypto(inode,
On 16.12.2016 23:14, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:48:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
@@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode,
pgoff_t lblk,
err = do_page_crypto(inode,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:48:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
> >> @@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode,
> >> pgoff_t lblk,
> >>err = do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk,
> >>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:48:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
> >> @@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode,
> >> pgoff_t lblk,
> >>err = do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk,
> >>
On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
>> @@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode,
>> pgoff_t lblk,
>> err = do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk,
>> ZERO_PAGE(0), ciphertext_page,
>>
On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote:
>> @@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode,
>> pgoff_t lblk,
>> err = do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk,
>> ZERO_PAGE(0), ciphertext_page,
>>
Hi,
> On 16.12.2016, at 11:50, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK.
>
> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann
> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap
> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig
Hi,
> On 16.12.2016, at 11:50, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK.
>
> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann
> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap
> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig
> Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto")
>
That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK.
Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap
Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig
Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto")
Signed-off-by: Richard
That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK.
Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap
Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig
Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto")
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger
---
fs/crypto/Kconfig | 1 -
12 matches
Mail list logo