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:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 21:44:23 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@redhat.com, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] block: keyslot-manager: Introduce passthrough
 keyslot manager
Message-ID: <20201021044423.GB3939@sol.localdomain>
References: <20201015214632.41951-1-satyat@google.com>
 <20201015214632.41951-2-satyat@google.com>
 <20201016072044.GB14885@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201016072044.GB14885@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 08:20:44AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> And this just validates my argument that calling the inline crypto work
> directly from the block layer instead of just down below in blk-mq was
> wrong.  We should not require any support from stacking drivers at the
> keyslot manager level.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here; could you clarify?

It's true that device-mapper devices don't need the actual keyslot management.
But they do need the ability to expose crypto capabilities as well as a key
eviction function.  And those are currently handled by
"struct blk_keyslot_manager".  Hence the need for a "passthrough keyslot
manager" that does those other things but not the actual keyslot management.

FWIW, I suggested splitting these up, but you disagreed and said you wanted the
crypto capabilities to remain part of the blk_keyslot_manager
(https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-block/20200327170047.GA24682@infradead.org/).
If you've now changed your mind, please be clear about it.

- Eric