Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] Move fscrypt and fsverity info out of struct inode

On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 10:47:32AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 12:56:53AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:

quoted

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.

Ah, sorry about that.  When I started looking at it again yesterday
there turned out to be way too many cleanups and fixes I wanted to make
(beyond the comments I gave earlier), and I hadn't seen activity from
you on it in a while.  So I figured it would be easier to just send a
series myself.  But I should have asked you first, sorry.

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.

So you'd like to discontinue the fscrypt and fsverity trees?  That's
what they are for: general infrastructure shared by multiple
filesystems.  Or is this comment just for this series in particular,
presumably because it touches 'struct inode'?

- Eric