From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760735Ab2CNKYm (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:24:42 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:29351 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760523Ab2CNKYl (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:24:41 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="138593853" Message-ID: <1331720835.2140.4.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [patch] Adding Secure Deletion to UBIFS From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Joel Reardon Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:27:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1330536308.3545.158.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1331278562.22872.18.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1331559053.12037.25.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1331559361.12037.29.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-1.fc16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 11:20 +0100, Joel Reardon wrote: > For removing the key scheme notion, is it correct to remove: > UBIFS_KEY_MAX_LEN and UBIFS_SK_, UBIFS_S_KEY_BLOCK_BITS, ... and replace > it with a fixed UBIFS_KEY_LEN (and other values), thus also ignoring > key_fmt in key_max_inode_size and simply use a fixed key scheme? Or shoul= d > I simply reduce MAX_LEN to 8 but still allow multiple bit assignments > within those 8 bytes via selecting a different key_fmt. Yes, sounds reasonable. --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy --=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJPYHKDAAoJECmIfjd9wqK0sosP/R8f0u4XyhtShLcQkqJL2BKy PovVEOi48W8OsOF2F3XwSlyfwOGUxJBix3lljlYIfU+R0N66uq/U5YUPvB8dZ3sp DvmdxWRiNl5WjyT9YzYQ0VzrWKgl21QwS0O6BiwL/r8OfCfeNLSpzKgmmuW694wU /GDa9KNjkPP8rD/ZUO2UX7/J4i5G0K904gPEJvLO0Af7qY8UI/RlaJ12OSf9MG30 DeznqaXnj9cn0szM201MBV6SEqHQa2yLA/Ed/OtpmdRHT72/dkmJ5y0V5EhcueCv HOhSu9JSDqoNdPUrCz9rOzA94jsDFVgqVmoaOEPM2VAUvhldBRgy3PM1Gq947TMg oRWI1Ux8Ua1gW3PUJfgPGIzoxM06BLs/I3unqcBwVxHLnanDuhKKiVTdgezbSbzs CnC0c8ttiP0KWCa0jJ9q1PRW1311H7xueaVCdeHtgykJ8XaYHQkZeCpSqi0gea2n E8nfAhQe/1cRMU3E8SKv1JCO5kIjyTX0QqCgIc8t79jHiAngX355w2k4z62+Pvro Nc9ghmbNwtR7LKFaMX6q0EG/JVh7cH5im1KyXrO0DLamHfXcDS6ADJefUz6pP038 jly6V5PZ17KZ/JkfeEGkkjXE6fLvNfKiyi+nz/yLAUq9fIxRKlWt9G4ON0ccaocp 7SyBipAOIOuxuRA9pGVU =AFKq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1S7lNr-0003o2-OA for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:24:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1331720835.2140.4.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [patch] Adding Secure Deletion to UBIFS From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Joel Reardon Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:27:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1330536308.3545.158.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1331278562.22872.18.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1331559053.12037.25.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <1331559361.12037.29.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 11:20 +0100, Joel Reardon wrote: > For removing the key scheme notion, is it correct to remove: > UBIFS_KEY_MAX_LEN and UBIFS_SK_, UBIFS_S_KEY_BLOCK_BITS, ... and replace > it with a fixed UBIFS_KEY_LEN (and other values), thus also ignoring > key_fmt in key_max_inode_size and simply use a fixed key scheme? Or shoul= d > I simply reduce MAX_LEN to 8 but still allow multiple bit assignments > within those 8 bytes via selecting a different key_fmt. Yes, sounds reasonable. --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy --=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJPYHKDAAoJECmIfjd9wqK0sosP/R8f0u4XyhtShLcQkqJL2BKy PovVEOi48W8OsOF2F3XwSlyfwOGUxJBix3lljlYIfU+R0N66uq/U5YUPvB8dZ3sp DvmdxWRiNl5WjyT9YzYQ0VzrWKgl21QwS0O6BiwL/r8OfCfeNLSpzKgmmuW694wU /GDa9KNjkPP8rD/ZUO2UX7/J4i5G0K904gPEJvLO0Af7qY8UI/RlaJ12OSf9MG30 DeznqaXnj9cn0szM201MBV6SEqHQa2yLA/Ed/OtpmdRHT72/dkmJ5y0V5EhcueCv HOhSu9JSDqoNdPUrCz9rOzA94jsDFVgqVmoaOEPM2VAUvhldBRgy3PM1Gq947TMg oRWI1Ux8Ua1gW3PUJfgPGIzoxM06BLs/I3unqcBwVxHLnanDuhKKiVTdgezbSbzs CnC0c8ttiP0KWCa0jJ9q1PRW1311H7xueaVCdeHtgykJ8XaYHQkZeCpSqi0gea2n E8nfAhQe/1cRMU3E8SKv1JCO5kIjyTX0QqCgIc8t79jHiAngX355w2k4z62+Pvro Nc9ghmbNwtR7LKFaMX6q0EG/JVh7cH5im1KyXrO0DLamHfXcDS6ADJefUz6pP038 jly6V5PZ17KZ/JkfeEGkkjXE6fLvNfKiyi+nz/yLAUq9fIxRKlWt9G4ON0ccaocp 7SyBipAOIOuxuRA9pGVU =AFKq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-K6Lh/2wvzSKZbG3dHkSV--