Re: [PATCH 5/12: eCryptfs] Header declarations

[Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>]

Hi Phillip,

On 11/19/05, Phillip Hellewell <phillip@hellewell.homeip.net> wrote:
> +struct ecryptfs_session_key {
> +#define ECRYPTFS_USERSPACE_SHOULD_TRY_TO_DECRYPT 0x01
> +#define ECRYPTFS_USERSPACE_SHOULD_TRY_TO_ENCRYPT 0x02
> +#define ECRYPTFS_CONTAINS_DECRYPTED_KEY 0x04
> +#define ECRYPTFS_CONTAINS_ENCRYPTED_KEY 0x08
> +       int32_t flags;
> +       int32_t encrypted_key_size;
> +       int32_t decrypted_key_size;
> +       uint8_t decrypted_key[ECRYPTFS_MAX_KEY_BYTES];
> +       uint8_t encrypted_key[ECRYPTFS_MAX_ENCRYPTED_KEY_BYTES];

s32 and u8 are preferred in the kernel.

> +#define OBSERVE_ASSERTS 1
> +#ifdef OBSERVE_ASSERTS
> +#define ASSERT(EX)                                                           \
> +do {                                                                         \
> +        if (unlikely(!(EX))) {                                                \
> +               printk(KERN_CRIT "ASSERTION FAILED: %s at %s:%d (%s)\n", #EX, \
> +                      __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__);                     \
> +                BUG();                                                        \
> +        }                                                                    \
> +} while (0)
> +#else
> +#define ASSERT(EX) ;
> +#endif                         /* OBSERVE_ASSERTS */

Any reason why you can't just use BUG and BUG_ON()?

> +
> +/**
> + * Halcrow: What does the kernel VFS do to ensure that there is no
> + * contention for file->private_data?
> + */

Please elaborate?

> +#define ECRYPTFS_FILE_TO_PRIVATE(file) ((struct ecryptfs_file_info *) \
> +                                        ((file)->private_data))
> +#define ECRYPTFS_FILE_TO_PRIVATE_SM(file) ((file)->private_data)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_FILE_TO_LOWER(file) \
> +        ((ECRYPTFS_FILE_TO_PRIVATE(file))->wfi_file)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_INODE_TO_PRIVATE(ino) ((struct ecryptfs_inode_info *) \
> +                                        (ino)->u.generic_ip)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_INODE_TO_PRIVATE_SM(ino) ((ino)->u.generic_ip)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_INODE_TO_LOWER(ino) (ECRYPTFS_INODE_TO_PRIVATE(ino)->wii_inode)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_SUPERBLOCK_TO_PRIVATE(super) ((struct ecryptfs_sb_info *) \
> +                                               (super)->s_fs_info)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_SUPERBLOCK_TO_PRIVATE_SM(super) ((super)->s_fs_info)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_SUPERBLOCK_TO_LOWER(super) \
> +        (ECRYPTFS_SUPERBLOCK_TO_PRIVATE(super)->wsi_sb)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_DENTRY_TO_PRIVATE_SM(dentry) ((dentry)->d_fsdata)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_DENTRY_TO_PRIVATE(dentry) ((struct ecryptfs_dentry_info *) \
> +                                            (dentry)->d_fsdata)
> +#define ECRYPTFS_DENTRY_TO_LOWER(dentry) \
> +        (ECRYPTFS_DENTRY_TO_PRIVATE(dentry)->wdi_dentry)

These wrappers seem rather pointless and obfuscating...

> +int virt_to_scatterlist(const void *addr, int size, struct scatterlist *sg,
> +                       int sg_size);

Doesn't seem ecryptfs specific, why is it here?

                                          Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/