On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 08:09:41AM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:47, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:53:19PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > Instead of open coding the calculations for ESSIV handling, use a > > > ESSIV skcipher which does all of this under the hood. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This looks fine (except for one comment below), but this heavily conflicts with > > the fscrypt patches planned for v5.4. So I suggest moving this to the end of > > the series and having Herbert take only 1-6, and I'll apply this one to the > > fscrypt tree later. > > > > I think the same applies to dm-crypt: at least patch #7 cannot be > applied until my eboiv patch is applied there as well, but [Milan > should confirm] I'd expect them to prefer taking those patches via the > dm tree anyway. > > Herbert, what would you prefer: > - taking a pull request from a [signed] tag based on v4.3-rc1 that > contains patches #1, #4, #5 and #6, allowing Eric and Milan/Mike to > merge it as well, and apply the respective fscrypt and dm-crypt > changes on top > - just take patches #1, #4, #5 and #6 as usual, and let the fscrypt > and dm-crypt changes be reposted to the respective lists during the > next cycle > FWIW I'd much prefer the second option, to minimize the number of special things that Linus will have to consider or deal with. (There's also going to be a conflict between the fscrypt and keyrings trees.) I'd be glad to take the fscrypt patch for 5.5, if the essiv template is added in 5.4. - Eric
