Re: [PATCH 3/4] ubifs: don't bother checking for encryption key in ->mmap()

[Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>]

Ted, Eric,

Am 23.06.2017 um 19:18 schrieb Eric Biggers:
> Ted + Richard,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:09:07PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:14:20PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>>>>
>>>> Since only an open file can be mmap'ed, and we only allow open()ing an
>>>> encrypted file when its key is available, there is no need to check for
>>>> the key again before permitting each mmap().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
>>
>> There are some patches that were sent to linux-fscrypt (including this
>> one) that are specific to ubifs that don't appear to be in linux-next
>> as of this writing.
>>
>> I can include them in the fscrypt tree (which I am updating somewhat
>> belatedly; sorry, crazy travel schedule has made me be late attending
>> to fscrypt), but it probably makes more sense for the change to go in
>> via the ubifs tree.  The f2fs version of the "don't bother checking
>> for encryption key" is already in linux-next, via the f2fs tree, for
>> example.
>>
>> So I'm planning on NOT taking the ubifs-specific patches that are in
>> the linux-fscrypto patch queue; unless Richard, you want to
>> specifically ask me to do so.
>>
> 
> The mmap and truncate patches were basically the same for each filesystem, but
> yes it's fine for them to go in separately.  Richard, can you take for ubifs:
> 
> 	ubifs: don't bother checking for encryption key in ->mmap()
> 	ubifs: require key for truncate(2) of encrypted file

Alright, I'll carry them. :-)

The plan is that the fscrypt tree will just contain fscrypt "core" patches and
global changes/cleanups go thought the individual filesystem trees, right?

Thanks,
//richard