Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] Move fscrypt and fsverity info out of struct inode
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Date: 2025-08-10 08:47:37
Also in:
ceph-devel, linux-btrfs, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fscrypt, linux-fsdevel
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 12:56:53AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
This is a cleaned-up implementation of moving the i_crypt_info and i_verity_info pointers out of 'struct inode' and into the fs-specific part of the inode, as proposed previously by Christian at https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250723-work-inode-fscrypt-v4-0-c8e11488a0e6@kernel.org/ (local) The high-level concept is still the same: fs/crypto/ and fs/verity/ locate the pointer by adding an offset to the address of struct inode. The offset is retrieved from fscrypt_operations or fsverity_operations. I've cleaned up a lot of the details, including: - Grouped changes into patches differently - Rewrote commit messages and comments to be clearer - Adjusted code formatting to be consistent with existing code - Removed unneeded #ifdefs - Improved choice and location of VFS_WARN_ON_ONCE() statements - Added missing kerneldoc for ubifs_inode::i_crypt_info - Moved field initialization to init_once functions when they exist - Improved ceph offset calculation and removed unneeded static_asserts - fsverity_get_info() now checks IS_VERITY() instead of v_ops - fscrypt_put_encryption_info() no longer checks IS_ENCRYPTED(), since I no longer think it's actually correct there. - verity_data_blocks() now keeps doing a raw dereference - Dropped fscrypt_set_inode_info() - Renamed some functions - Do offset calculation using int, so we don't rely on unsigned overflow - And more. For v4 and earlier, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250723-work-inode-fscrypt-v4-0-c8e11488a0e6@kernel.org/ (local) I'd like to take this series through the fscrypt tree for 6.18. (fsverity normally has a separate tree, but by choosing just one tree for this, we'll avoid conflicts in some places.)
Woh woh. First, I had a cleaned up version ready for v6.18 so if you plan on taking over someone's series and resend then maybe ask the author first whether that's ok or not. I haven't seen you do that. You just caused duplicated work for no reason. And second general infrastructure changes that touch multiple fses and generic fs infrastructure I very much want to go through VFS trees. We'll simply use a shared tree.