linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] fscrypt: add inline encryption support

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 Feb 2020 21:39:05 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] fscrypt: add inline encryption support

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:50:48AM -0800, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/crypto/keysetup.c b/fs/crypto/keysetup.c
> index 65cb09fa6ead..7c157130c16a 100644
> --- a/fs/crypto/keysetup.c
> +++ b/fs/crypto/keysetup.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ struct fscrypt_mode fscrypt_modes[] = {
>  		.cipher_str = "xts(aes)",
>  		.keysize = 64,
>  		.ivsize = 16,
> +		.blk_crypto_mode = BLK_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_256_XTS,
> +		.blk_crypto_dun_bytes_required = 8,
>  	},
>  	[FSCRYPT_MODE_AES_256_CTS] = {
>  		.friendly_name = "AES-256-CTS-CBC",
> @@ -31,6 +33,8 @@ struct fscrypt_mode fscrypt_modes[] = {
>  		.cipher_str = "essiv(cbc(aes),sha256)",
>  		.keysize = 16,
>  		.ivsize = 16,
> +		.blk_crypto_mode = BLK_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_128_CBC_ESSIV,
> +		.blk_crypto_dun_bytes_required = 8,
>  	},
>  	[FSCRYPT_MODE_AES_128_CTS] = {
>  		.friendly_name = "AES-128-CTS-CBC",
> @@ -43,6 +47,8 @@ struct fscrypt_mode fscrypt_modes[] = {
>  		.cipher_str = "adiantum(xchacha12,aes)",
>  		.keysize = 32,
>  		.ivsize = 32,
> +		.blk_crypto_mode = BLK_ENCRYPTION_MODE_ADIANTUM,
> +		.blk_crypto_dun_bytes_required = 24,
>  	},
>  };

The DUN bytes required is actually determined by the IV generation method too.
Currently fscrypt has the following combinations:

	AES-256-XTS: 8 bytes
	AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: 8 bytes
	Adiantum without DIRECT_KEY: 8 bytes
	Adiantum with DIRECT_KEY: 24 bytes

I.e., DIRECT_KEY is only allowed with Adiantum, but not required for it.

So it's technically incorrect to always pass dun_bytes_required=24 for Adiantum.

And it's conceivable that in the future we could add an fscrypt setting that
uses AES-256-XTS with 16 IV bytes.  Such a setting wouldn't be usable with UFS
inline encryption, yet the existing AES-256-XTS settings still would.

So, how about instead of putting .blk_crypto_dun_bytes_required in the
crypto_mode table, using logic like:

	dun_bytes_required = 8;
	if (flags & FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_DIRECT_KEY)
		dun_bytes_required += 16;

> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 3cd4fe6b845e..2331ff0464b2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1370,6 +1370,7 @@ extern int send_sigurg(struct fown_struct *fown);
>  #define SB_NODIRATIME	2048	/* Do not update directory access times */
>  #define SB_SILENT	32768
>  #define SB_POSIXACL	(1<<16)	/* VFS does not apply the umask */
> +#define SB_INLINE_CRYPT	(1<<17)	/* inodes in SB use blk-crypto */
>  #define SB_KERNMOUNT	(1<<22) /* this is a kern_mount call */
>  #define SB_I_VERSION	(1<<23) /* Update inode I_version field */
>  #define SB_LAZYTIME	(1<<25) /* Update the on-disk [acm]times lazily */

This flag probably should be called "SB_INLINECRYPT" to match the mount option,
which is "inlinecrypt" not "inline_crypt".

Also, the addition of this flag, along with the update to show_sb_opts() in
fs/proc_namespace.c which I think is needed, maybe should go in a separate patch
whose subject is prefixed with "fs: " to make it clearer to reviewers that this
part is a VFS-level change.

- Eric