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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:02:47 +0000
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@...hat.com>, dchinner@...hat.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, fsverity@...ts.linux.dev,
        rpeterso@...hat.com, agruenba@...hat.com, xiang@...nel.org,
        chao@...nel.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, jth@...nel.org,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/23] xfs: disable direct read path for fs-verity
 sealed files

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 08:50:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 08:09:27AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Thinking about this a little more -- I suppose we shouldn't just go
> > breaking directio reads from a verity file if we can help it.  Is there
> > a way to ask fsverity to perform its validation against some arbitrary
> > memory buffer that happens to be fs-block aligned?

You could certainly add such a function that wraps around verify_data_block().
The minimal function prototype needed (without supporting readahead or reusing
the ahash_request) would be something like the following, I think:

    bool fsverity_verify_blocks_dio(struct inode *inode, u64 pos,
                                    struct folio *folio,
                                    size_t len, size_t offset);

And I really hope that you don't want to do DIO to the *Merkle tree*, as that
would make the problem significantly harder.  I think DIO for the data, but
handling the Merkle tree in the usual way, would be okay?

> 
> That would be my preference as well.  But maybe Eric know a good reason
> why this hasn't been done yet.
> 

I believe it would be possible, especially if DIO to the Merkle tree is not in
scope.  There just hasn't been a reason to the work yet.  And ext4 and f2fs
already fall back to buffer I/O for other filesystem features, so there was
precedent for not bothering with DIO, at least in the initial version.

- Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists