linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: use 32 bytes of encrypted filename

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <39a844e5-5718-3a63-1f8d-9f6d3568ca51@sigma-star.at>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:24:04 +0200
From:   David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@...ma-star.at>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc:     Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, kinaba@...omium.org,
        hashimoto@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: use 32 bytes of encrypted filename

On 04/19/2017 07:12 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Eric,
> 
> Am 19.04.2017 um 19:09 schrieb Eric Biggers:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tested only on ext4.
>>>
>>> I hope you classify this patch as RFC then.
>>> We'll have problems when you just develop and test for ext4. :-)
>>>
>>
>> It's a little difficult for people to test stuff on UBIFS without a turn-key
>> solution like kvm-xfstests where they can just run something like
>> 'kvm-xfstests -c ext4,f2fs,ubifs -g encrypt'.
>>
>> I did post patches to add UBIFS support to xfstests and kvm-xfstests a few
>> months ago; maybe you're interested in taking them over and working to get them
>> merged?
> 
> I assigned this talk already to David.
> He can tell what the status is.
> 
What I have right now is mostly similar to the previous patch for
xfstests-dev that was submitted to the mailing list. I haven't looked
into the xfstests-bld patch yet.

To sumarize what happend so far:

A while ago, I took a look at Erics xfstest patches and the similar
patch series from Dongsheng Yang. Based on those, I got the xfstests
running with UBIFS on nandsim inside a VM with fairly little changes.
AFAIR there were two tests failing, one of them being generic/129,
apparently because it exhausts the space on one of the UBI volumes, and
another one for which a fix was provided.

My work on the xfstests-dev patch was preempted by other projects, but I
briefly got back to it when an O_TMPFILE regression was reported on the
mtd mailing list. This should have been caught by generic/004 but
wasn't because the UBIFS error message didn't match the grep pattern
run on dmesg.

Other such cases may exist.

Today, after rebasing/porting my local changes to upstream xfstets-dev,
I ran the tests against on both Richards UBIFS tree and Linus' tree. On
both kernels I'm now getting 5 failing tests out of 94 (with one of
them being generic/129 again).

Further work on some of the test scripts is required.

David