linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: reserve flags for hardware-wrapped keys feature

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200117165624.GC1937954@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:56:24 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@...eaurora.org>,
        Gaurav Kashyap <gaurkash@...eaurora.org>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fscrypt: reserve flags for hardware-wrapped keys feature

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:40:54AM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:12:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:20:08AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> > > 
> > > Reserve flags for the hardware-wrapped keys feature which is being
> > > worked on [1].  FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_HW_WRAPPED_KEY will denote that the
> > > encryption policy needs a hardware-wrapped key to be unlocked.
> > > FSCRYPT_ADD_KEY_FLAG_HW_WRAPPED will denote that the key being added is
> > > a hardware-wrapped key.
> > > 
> > > This reservation is tentative, and these codepoints may be reused if the
> > > feature is not upstreamed.
> > 
> > NAK.  While the feature itself sounds really useful we don't just
> > reserve format bits for code not upstream.
> 
> I disagree; saving a codepoint to avoid accidental collision of a
> feature bit is a good and proper thing to do.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>

What kind of "deadline" do you have for that feature to then be merged?
I'm with Christoph here, we shouldn't be reserving bits for stuff not
in mergable state, what's the rush?

thansk,

greg k-h