03.05.2015, 20:53, Theodore Ts'o kirjoitti: > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 03:34:14PM +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 01.05.2015, 03:18, Herbert Xu kirjoitti: >>> This patch adds a tristate EXT4_ENCRYPTION to do the selections >>> for EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION because selecting from a bool causes all >>> the selected options to be built-in, even if EXT4 itself is a >>> module. >> >> Hmm, are you sure? >> >> Since CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION itself depends on CONFIG_EXT4_FS, the >> selector for the selected options becomes (CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION && >> CONFIG_EXT4_FS && CONFIG_BLOCK). >> >> Per my testing on git master (without this patch), if EXT4_FS=m and >> EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION=y, both "built-in" and "module" options are allowed >> for the selected options (checked CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS myself). > > I believe the situation which is causing concern is when someone wants > to build a kernel where EXT4_FS=y, but they want the cryptographic > algorithms to be modules. In that case, since EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION is > 'y', it forces the all of the crypto modules to be built into the > kernel, and so it forecloses that option from someone who is building > or packaging a kernel. Ah, OK, so not "EXT4 itself as a module" like the commit message said :) For the situation you described I don't see a better solution either. -- Anssi Hannula -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
