Matthew Ahrens wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Andreas Dilger wrote: >> >>> I agree, but I suspect large dnodes could also be of use to ZFS at >>> some point, either for fast EAs and/or small files, so we wanted to >>> get some buy-in from the ZFS developers on an approach that would >>> be suitable for ZFS also. In particular, being able to use the larger >>> dnode space for a variety of reasons (more elements in dn_blkptr[], >>> small file data, fast EA space) is much more desirable than a >>> Lustre-only >>> implementation. >> >> Let me give an alternate view here. This could make ZFS Crypto more >> complex because now data would sometimes be stored inside the dnode. >> I need to think about this a bit more but in general it makes me >> uneasy, it may turn out not to be an issue though. > > I thought we were just talking about increasing the potential bonus > buffer size. So it is no different than the problem you have today: you > need to encrypt the bonus buffer part of the dnode_phys_t, but not the > rest of it.
Ah okay. Maybe I read too much into it that the dnode_phys_t would actually have more than the bonus buffer to worry about if it all this stays in the bonusbuffer then yes it is the same existing problem with ensuring that gets encrypted. -- Darren J Moffat
