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  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:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:52:19 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <>
To:     Eric Biggers <>
Cc:     Gwendal Grignou <>, Chao Yu <>,
        Ryo Hashimoto <>,
        Vadim Sukhomlinov <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,,,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        LKML <>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ext4 crypto: fix to check feature status before
 get policy"


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:59 PM Doug Anderson <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Eric Biggers <> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, from reading the Chrome OS code, I think the code you linked to isn't
> > where the breakage actually is.  I think it's actually at
> >
> > ... where an init script is using the error message printed by 'e4crypt
> > get_policy' to decide whether to add -O encrypt to the filesystem or not.
> >
> > It really should check instead:
> >
> >         [ -e /sys/fs/ext4/features/encryption ]
> OK, I filed <> and CCed all the people listed
> in the cryptohome "OWNERS" file.  Hopefully one of them can pick this
> up as a general cleanup.  Thanks!

Just to follow-up: I did a quick test here to see if I could fix
"" as you suggested.  Then I got rid of the Revert
and tried to login.  No joy.

Digging a little deeper, the ext4_dir_encryption_supported() function
is called in two places:
* chromeos-install
* chromeos_startup

In my test case I had a machine that I'd already logged into (on a
previous kernel version) and I was trying to log into it a second
time.  Thus there's no way that chromeos-install could be involved.
Looking at chromeos_startup:

...the function is only used for setting up the "encrypted stateful"
partition.  That wasn't where my failure was.  My failure was with
logging in AKA with cryptohome.  Thus I think it's plausible that my
original commit message pointing at cryptohome may have been correct.
It's possible that there were _also_ problems with encrypted stateful
that I wasn't noticing, but if so they were not the only problems.

It still may be wise to make Chrome OS use different tests, but it
might not be quite as simple as hoped...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists