linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] fs-verity: add a documentation file

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:34:38 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Victor Hsieh <victorhsieh@...gle.com>,
        Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] fs-verity: add a documentation file

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:28:13AM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 07:53:54AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > In contrast to "we'll just fix it up later" (which usually applies
> > to in-kernel interfaces), we have a policy of not breaking userspace,
> > so accepting this interface means setting it in stone.  We should get
> > it right.
> 
> I'm not convinced it's a "fix", but my point is that if later on you
> want to add extra complexity transforming
> 
>      ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY);
> 
> so it does the equivalent of
> 
>      ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY_NOW_WITH_EXTRA_USELESS_COMPLEXITY,
> 	   fd, sizeof_data, sizeof_verity_data);

I disagree with your EXTRA_USELESS_COMPLEXITY appendage.  The interface
you designed reflects the implementation you did in ext4, so I understand
why it seems simple from your point of view.  From the user point of view,
it looks completely weird.  You write a file, being a series of bytes,
then all of a sudden have to know that it's composed of blocks, seek
to the next block, write a header, then this Merkle data structure,
then write a footer which isn't allowed to cross a block boundary
for some unknowable reason.  It seems much more logical to have the
header+Merkle+footer as a separate data stream which the filesystem can
then layout according to its own rules.