Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:43:53 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Niels de Vos <ndevos@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>,
        Marcel Lauhoff <marcel.lauhoff@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] fs: provide per-filesystem options to disable fscrypt
Message-ID: <Y21GaVgkoeWOPFO4@mit.edu>
References: <20221110141225.2308856-1-ndevos@redhat.com>
 <Y20a/akbY8Wcy3qg@mit.edu>
 <Y20rDl45vSmdEo3N@ndevos-x1>
 <Y20/ynxvIqOyRbxK@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y20/ynxvIqOyRbxK@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 01:15:38PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:47:10PM +0100, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > And, there actually are options like CONFIG_EXT4_FS_POSIX_ACL and
> > CONFIG_EXT4_FS_SECURITY. Because these exist already, I did not expect
> > too much concerns with proposing a CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION...
> 
> Actually, I was thinking of getting rid of them, as we've already
> gotten rid of EXT4_FS_POSIX_ACL....

Sorry, I meant to say that we had gotten rid of EXT4_FS_XATTR.

	       	       	      	      	  - Ted