Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:47:20 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix use-after-free when accessing
 bio->bi_crypt_context
Message-ID: <20200615154720.GA902@sol.localdomain>
References: <1592193588-21701-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org>
 <20200615050019.GA3100@sol.localdomain>
 <20200615061633.GA23467@google.com>
 <20200615095316.GB2916@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200615095316.GB2916@codeaurora.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:23:16PM +0530, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > 
> > Should I fold this change into the original patch? Or keep it as a
> > separate patch when I send out the fscrypt/f2fs inline encryption
> > patches?
> 
> It may be good to keep it seperate as we already have the base FBE patches in
> several downstream kernels, so this fix can be applied easily. But I will
> leave it up to you to take a call on this.
> 

We should fold it in because the patch this fixes isn't applied upstream yet.

We'll need to submit this as a separate fix to the Android common kernels
because they already have a previous version of the inline encryption patchset.
(I assume that's where you have the code from.)  But that doesn't affect what we
do upstream.

- Eric