linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/3] fscrypt: add support for inline-encryption-optimized policies

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:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:30:01 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
        Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@...gle.com>,
        Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fscrypt: add support for inline-encryption-optimized
 policies

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:00:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> That won't work because we need consecutive file blocks to have consecutive IVs
> as often as possible.  The crypto support in the UFS and EMMC standards takes
> only a single 64-bit "data unit number" (DUN) per request, which the hardware
> uses as the first 64 bits of the IV and automatically increments for each data
> unit (i.e. for each filesystem block, in this case).

It seems very likely that for systems that are using UFS and eMMC
(which are overwhelming lower-end devices --- e.g., embedded and
mobile handsets) 32-bit inode and logical block numbers will be just
fine.

If and when we actually get inline crypto support for server-class
systems, hopefully they will support 128-bit DUN's, and/or they will
have sufficiently fast key load times such that we can use per-file
keying.

> An alternative which would work nicely on ext4 and xfs (if xfs supported
> fscrypt) would be to pass the physical block number as the DUN.  However, that
> wouldn't work at all on f2fs because f2fs moves data blocks around.  And since
> most people who want to use this are using f2fs, f2fs support is essential.

And that is something fscrypt supports already, so if people really
did want to use 64-bit logical block numbers, they could do that, at
the cost of giving up the ability to shrink the file system (which XFS
doesn't support anyway....)

							- Ted