[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:42 PM Richard Weinberger <> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, 23:26:11 CET schrieb Eric Biggers:

> > What specifically is wrong with supporting the ciphertext "view" of encrypted
> > directories, and why do you want to opt UBIFS out of it specifically but not
> > ext4 and f2fs? (The fscrypt_operations are per-filesystem type, not
> > per-filesystem instance, so I assume that's what you had in mind.) Note that we
> > can't unconditionally remove it because people need it to delete files without
> > the key. We could add a mount option to disable it, but why exactly?
> You are right, fscrypt_operations is the wrong structure.
> My plan was having it per filesystem instance. So a mount-option seems like
> a good option. Of course for all filesystems that support fscrypt, not just UBIFS.

Yes, please. Changing filesystem contents based on a mount option is
orders of magnitude more sane than doing so on key insertion/removal.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-14 08:35    [W:0.082 / U:0.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site