On Thursday 31 May 2018 04:46 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/31/18 1:47 AM, Ladvine D Almeida wrote: >> On Monday 28 May 2018 04:54 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 5/28/18 7:43 AM, Ladvine D Almeida wrote: >>>> This patch introduces new variable under bio structure to >>>> facilitate inline encryption. This variable is used to >>>> associate I/O requests to crypto information. >>> Hard no on this, for two reasons: >>> >>> 1) Any additions to struct bio are scrutinized heavily and >>> need strong justification. >> Thanks for sharing your feedback on the patch. >> I am providing reference to an earlier article related to inline encryption support below: >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lwn.net_Articles_717754_&d=DwICaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=z00zRD9ARrwHpe-XSl1OtUp1uNKGYoXI1G2DhOaDDBI&m=m8U0bg9QiswO2oVJgJKq3MmJpqPPK_tN667XwsjojcM&s=9VPcl80YTKwbf8T-oCxWTRahYzS2xNDHZMexpFbuepY&e= > Took a quick look, and this looks like a classic case of something > that should just be a cloned bio. If you clone, you own the bi_private > field, which is what you need. Cloning the bio gives ownership of the bi_private variable which i can use to refer to the crypto context. But i have the following problem here: 1. In the dm-crypt subsystem, we clone the bio and assign the bi_private variable. Afterwards, generic_make_request() is done to submit I/O request to block device. 2. The bio will be cloned further in the below layers. The reference in the bi_private variable is now lost as the bio_clone function will not copy the bi_private variable. Also, the bi_private variable is already used in the dm-crypt layer for storing its private data. This prevents me from using the same. > Thanks, Ladvine
