On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 08:48:03PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > Sure, those specific people (modulo you just now) haven't responded to the > fs-verity patches yet. But again, the patches have been out for review for > months. Of course, we always prefer more reviews over fewer, and we strongly > encourage anyone interested to review fs-verity! (The Documentation/ file may > be a good place to start.) But ultimately we cannot force reviews, and as you > know kernel reviews can be very hard to come by. Yet, people still need > fs-verity anyway; it isn't just some toy. And we're committed to maintaining > it, similar to fscrypt. The ext4 and f2fs maintainers are also satisfied with > the current approach to storing the verity metadata past EOF; in fact it was > even originally Ted's idea, I think. But you also can't force inclusion. And Linus just recently complained about merging common code patches through trees for a specific fs without proper VFS ACKs. And that was a for a case without userspace ABI implications, so we really need a much better review here. Including a VFS person ACK, CC to linux-abi and man pages for the interface. > > Given that you alread use an ioctl as the interface what is the problem > > of passing this data through the ioctl? > > Do you mean pass the verity metadata in a buffer? That cannot work in general, > because it may be too large to fit into memory. Have a pointer in the ioctl and do get_user_pages on it.
