Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B048C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74DB2084F for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726224AbfBUNbo (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:31:44 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:45058 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725920AbfBUNbo (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:31:44 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1LDTxN2035991 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:31:42 -0500 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qsv93hy13-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:31:42 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:40 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:38 -0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1LDVbh958130594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:37 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590DD42049; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62BB4203F; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.75.223]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:31:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Chandan Rajendra To: Eric Biggers Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jaegeuk@kernel.org, yuchao0@huawei.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Consolidate Post read processing code Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:59:48 +0530 Organization: IBM In-Reply-To: <20190219211715.GA12177@gmail.com> References: <20190218100433.20048-1-chandan@linux.ibm.com> <20190219211715.GA12177@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022113-0028-0000-0000-0000034B4EFA X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022113-0029-0000-0000-0000240993A7 Message-Id: <2497291.Oz6HVsdQeZ@localhost.localdomain> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-21_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902210099 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:47:16 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > Hi Chandan, > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:34:23PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > This patchset moves the "post read processing" code into a file of its > > own and gets the generic do_mpage_readpge() to make use of the > > functionality provided. With these changes in place, the patchset > > changes Ext4 to use mpage_readpage[s] instead of its own custom > > ext4_readpages() function. This is done to reduce duplicity of code > > across filesystems. Based on the reviews provided for this patchset, I > > will change F2FS to use mpage_readpage[s] and post the next version of > > this patchset to linux-fsdevel mailing list. > > > > The patchset also includes patches from previous postings i.e. > > patches to replace per-filesystem encryption config options with a > > single config option that affects all filesystems making use of > > fscrypt code. > > > > Chandan Rajendra (10): > > ext4: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > > f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > > fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option > > Consolidate "post read processing" into a new file > > fsverity: Add call back to decide if verity check has to be performed > > Introduce REQ_POST_READ_PROC bio flag > > fsverity: Add call back to determine readpage limit > > fsverity: Add call back to verify file holes > > fs/mpage.c: Integrate post read processing > > ext4: Wire up ext4_readpage[s] to use mpage_readpage[s] > > > > Thanks for working on this! This will also make it much easier to support > block_size != PAGE_SIZE in ext4 encryption, right? I think this is the best > path forward, but I'll take a closer look at your new patches. > > FYI regarding practical matters, merging fs-verity was delayed due to > disagreement about the API. See https://lwn.net/Articles/775872/. > > We don't have to wait for fs-verity for your initial fscrypt changes, though: > > ext4: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status > fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option > > So, a couple weeks ago Ted and I already queued those three patches in > fscrypt.git (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/fscrypt.git > branch "master", though we plan to change the repo soon) for the upcoming merge > window, based on upstream rather than fs-verity. Are you fine with that? Yes, the changes looks good. Thanks for queueing them up. > > I also suggest adding linux-fsdevel to the Cc given the fs/*.c changes. Yes, I will do that. > > Thanks! > > - Eric > > -- chandan