From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [Ext4 Secure Delete 1/7v4] ext4: Secure Delete: Add new EXT4_SECRM_RANDOM_FL flag Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:02:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20111007170255.GE12447@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1317971465-8517-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1317971465-8517-2-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: djwong@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Allison Henderson Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:33794 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750753Ab1JGRFB (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:05:01 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by us.ibm.com with XMail ESMTP for from ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:04:53 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1317971465-8517-2-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:10:59AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote: > This patch adds a new attribute flag EXT4_SECRM_RANDOM_FL. > During a secure delete, this flag will cause blocks to be > overwritten with random data instead of zeros. > > Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson > --- > :100644 100644 e717dfd... db54ce4... M fs/ext4/ext4.h > fs/ext4/ext4.h | 9 ++++++--- > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h > index e717dfd..db54ce4 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h > @@ -350,17 +350,18 @@ struct flex_groups { > #define EXT4_EXTENTS_FL 0x00080000 /* Inode uses extents */ > #define EXT4_EA_INODE_FL 0x00200000 /* Inode used for large EA */ > #define EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL 0x00400000 /* Blocks allocated beyond EOF */ > +#define EXT4_SECRM_RANDOM_FL 0x10000000 /* Use random data instead of zeros */ > #define EXT4_RESERVED_FL 0x80000000 /* reserved for ext4 lib */ > > -#define EXT4_FL_USER_VISIBLE 0x004BDFFF /* User visible flags */ > -#define EXT4_FL_USER_MODIFIABLE 0x004B80FF /* User modifiable flags */ > +#define EXT4_FL_USER_VISIBLE 0x104BDFFF /* User visible flags */ > +#define EXT4_FL_USER_MODIFIABLE 0x104B80FF /* User modifiable flags */ Is there a reason why this #define is 0x104BDFFF instead of a bunch of flags or'd together in a manner similar to the one below it? --D > > /* Flags that should be inherited by new inodes from their parent. */ > #define EXT4_FL_INHERITED (EXT4_SECRM_FL | EXT4_UNRM_FL | EXT4_COMPR_FL |\ > EXT4_SYNC_FL | EXT4_IMMUTABLE_FL | EXT4_APPEND_FL |\ > EXT4_NODUMP_FL | EXT4_NOATIME_FL |\ > EXT4_NOCOMPR_FL | EXT4_JOURNAL_DATA_FL |\ > - EXT4_NOTAIL_FL | EXT4_DIRSYNC_FL) > + EXT4_NOTAIL_FL | EXT4_DIRSYNC_FL | EXT4_SECRM_RANDOM_FL) > > /* Flags that are appropriate for regular files (all but dir-specific ones). */ > #define EXT4_REG_FLMASK (~(EXT4_DIRSYNC_FL | EXT4_TOPDIR_FL)) > @@ -407,6 +408,7 @@ enum { > EXT4_INODE_EXTENTS = 19, /* Inode uses extents */ > EXT4_INODE_EA_INODE = 21, /* Inode used for large EA */ > EXT4_INODE_EOFBLOCKS = 22, /* Blocks allocated beyond EOF */ > + EXT4_INODE_SECRM_RANDOM = 28, /* Use random data instead of zeros */ > EXT4_INODE_RESERVED = 31, /* reserved for ext4 lib */ > }; > > @@ -453,6 +455,7 @@ static inline void ext4_check_flag_values(void) > CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(EXTENTS); > CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(EA_INODE); > CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(EOFBLOCKS); > + CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(SECRM_RANDOM); > CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(RESERVED); > } > > -- > 1.7.1 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >