Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:11:39 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@qti.qualcomm.com>,
        Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] block: Keyslot Manager for Inline Encryption
Message-ID: <20200305161139.GA19270@infradead.org>
References: <20200221115050.238976-1-satyat@google.com>
 <20200221115050.238976-2-satyat@google.com>
 <20200221170434.GA438@infradead.org>
 <20200221173118.GA30670@infradead.org>
 <20200227181411.GB877@sol.localdomain>
 <20200227212512.GA162309@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200227212512.GA162309@google.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 01:25:12PM -0800, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> I think it does make some sense at least to make the keyslot type opaque
> to most of the system other than the driver itself (the driver will now
> have to call a function like blk_ksm_slot_idx_for_keyslot to actually get
> a keyslot number at the end of the day). Also this way, the keyslot manager
> can verify that the keyslot passed to blk_ksm_put_slot is actually part of
> that keyslot manager (and that somebody isn't releasing a slot number that
> was actually acquired from a different keyslot manager). I don't think
> it's much benefit or loss either way, but I already switched to passing
> pointers to struct keyslot around instead of ints, so I'll keep it that
> way unless you strongly feel that using ints in this case is better
> than struct keyslot *.

Exactly.  This provides a little type safety.