Eric, > On 15.11.2016, at 19:14, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:20:44PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> From: David Gstir <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> ext4 and f2fs require a bounce page when encrypting pages. However, not >> all filesystems will need that (eg. UBIFS). This is handled via a >> flag on fscrypt_operations where a fs implementation can select in-place >> encryption over using a bounce page (which is the default). >> >> Signed-off-by: David Gstir <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> > > The comment for fscrypt_encrypt_page() still says the following: > > * Called on the page write path. The caller must call > * fscrypt_restore_control_page() on the returned ciphertext page to > * release the bounce buffer and the encryption context. > > It seems this isn't correct anymore. Yes, this is not true in all cases anymore. Will fix that. > It also looks like the fscrypt_context > never gets released in the case where the page is encrypted in-place. You're right. I've already fixed that locally and will include it in the next patch set. > Additionally, after this change the name of the flag FS_WRITE_PATH_FL is > misleading, since it now really indicates the presence of a bounce buffer rather > than the "write path". I can see no use case for FS_WRITE_PATH_FL other than to indicate that the bounce buffer has to be free'd. Is there any reason why we should not just remove it and check the presence of a bounce buffer by a simple "if (ctx->w.bounce_page)" ? Thanks, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
