From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760717Ab2CNKUy (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:20:54 -0400 Received: from static.78-46-68-141.clients.your-server.de ([78.46.68.141]:51677 "HELO eristoteles.iwoars.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760682Ab2CNKUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:20:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:20:46 +0100 (CET) From: Joel Reardon X-X-Sender: joel@eristoteles.iwoars.net To: Artem Bityutskiy cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Adding Secure Deletion to UBIFS In-Reply-To: <1331559361.12037.29.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Message-ID: 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 should I simply reduce MAX_LEN to 8 but still allow multiple bit assignments within those 8 bytes via selecting a different key_fmt. Cheers, Joel Reardon On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 15:30 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > Btw, when I was > > > developing it I used the last 8 bytes from the key as the key position, > > > because the key was 16 bytes but only 8 were used. Could you comment on > > > the last 8 bytes of ubifs keys? > > > > I think you can use them. But is it possible to kill these things from > > the data nodes themselves? We can always find it by looking up the index > > by the data node key, right? > > Joel, but please, send small patches, preparation patches, etc. Do not > disappear for several months and do not come back with another big > patch. Tell about your intentions in advance. > > E.g., if you decide to start using those unused 8 bytes - first do small > preparations like removing the notion of "key scheme" which we > provisioned but never used (from comments as well). Clean-up the "space" > for yourself. Then start using them for your purposes. As I said, as > soon as I get the first patch I like, I'll create a separate branch in > the UBIFS git tree for your work. > > Thanks! > > -- > Best Regards, > Artem Bityutskiy > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [78.46.68.141] (helo=eristoteles.iwoars.net) by merlin.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1S7lK5-0001gC-Dy for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:20:50 +0000 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:20:46 +0100 (CET) From: Joel Reardon To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [patch] Adding Secure Deletion to UBIFS In-Reply-To: <1331559361.12037.29.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 should I simply reduce MAX_LEN to 8 but still allow multiple bit assignments within those 8 bytes via selecting a different key_fmt. Cheers, Joel Reardon On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 15:30 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > Btw, when I was > > > developing it I used the last 8 bytes from the key as the key position, > > > because the key was 16 bytes but only 8 were used. Could you comment on > > > the last 8 bytes of ubifs keys? > > > > I think you can use them. But is it possible to kill these things from > > the data nodes themselves? We can always find it by looking up the index > > by the data node key, right? > > Joel, but please, send small patches, preparation patches, etc. Do not > disappear for several months and do not come back with another big > patch. Tell about your intentions in advance. > > E.g., if you decide to start using those unused 8 bytes - first do small > preparations like removing the notion of "key scheme" which we > provisioned but never used (from comments as well). Clean-up the "space" > for yourself. Then start using them for your purposes. As I said, as > soon as I get the first patch I like, I'll create a separate branch in > the UBIFS git tree for your work. > > Thanks! > > -- > Best Regards, > Artem Bityutskiy > >