Security and trustworthiness framework of ceph is important for data storage. Now, cephx and https base on openssl enhance the security of transport layer, and rgw encrytion implementation supports data protection for object store.
Nevertheless, as issues said, #36539, space usage and data security are exclusive.
New compression and encryption filters do not stack, but logically could do so. Users must choose between at rest data reduction and data security.
The pr solves this problem. Why compressing first and then encrypting, discussion about data encryption and compression has answer
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/33737/is-it-better-to-encrypt-before-compression-or-vice-versa

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity for 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs for another 30 days.
If you are a maintainer or core committer, please follow-up on this pull request to identify what steps should be taken by the author to move this proposed change forward.
If you are the author of this pull request, thank you for your proposed contribution. If you believe this change is still appropriate, please ensure that any feedback has been addressed and ask for a code review.

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity for 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs for another 30 days.
If you are a maintainer or core committer, please follow-up on this pull request to identify what steps should be taken by the author to move this proposed change forward.
If you are the author of this pull request, thank you for your proposed contribution. If you believe this change is still appropriate, please ensure that any feedback has been addressed and ask for a code review.

This pull request can no longer be automatically merged: a rebase is needed and changes have to be manually resolved

@Zhiwei-Dai sorry, can you rebase please?

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity for 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs for another 30 days.
If you are a maintainer or core committer, please follow-up on this pull request to identify what steps should be taken by the author to move this proposed change forward.
If you are the author of this pull request, thank you for your proposed contribution. If you believe this change is still appropriate, please ensure that any feedback has been addressed and ask for a code review.

close since #46188 could replace it.