From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4F8C32792 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:13:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E68D21855 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:13:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3E68D21855 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:55254 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iEzES-0003GP-SN for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:13:08 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47309) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iEzCh-0001qo-Gx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:11:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iEzCg-0005gj-HX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:11:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iEzCe-0005fT-2T; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:11:16 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D35B356CE; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from maximlenovopc.usersys.redhat.com (unknown [10.35.206.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A217560126; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:11:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <2ec8551dd17b13fb173cdbe12979761a89332948.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/11] RFC crypto/luks: encryption key managment using amend interface From: Maxim Levitsky To: John Snow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:11:09 +0300 In-Reply-To: <632e3a8b-ee54-50e0-83a2-ea82ad8e061f@redhat.com> References: <20190912223028.18496-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com> <632e3a8b-ee54-50e0-83a2-ea82ad8e061f@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:11:14 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , "Daniel P. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Berrang=E9?=" , Markus Armbruster , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Max Reitz Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 17:14 -0400, John Snow wrote: > > On 9/12/19 6:30 PM, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > This patch series is continuation of my work to add encryption > > key managment to luks/qcow2 with luks. > > > > This is second version of this patch set. > > The changes are mostly addressing the review feedback, > > plus I tested (and fixed sadly) the somewhat ugly code > > that allows to still write share a raw luks device, > > while preveting the key managment from happening in this case, > > as it is unsafe. > > I added a new iotest dedicated to that as well. > > > > Best regards, > > Maxim Levitsky > > > > What branch is this based on? > It doesn't seem to apply to origin/master. > > --js Hi! Most of the refactoring patches are now on the master branch, (one patch was dropped due to me being blind :-(), so should I resend this patch series with the missing patch or wait for some review? At that stage I would like to hear about agreement/disagreement on the new APIs, and stuff like that. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky