linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] ceph: mark directory as non-complete complete after loading key

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, 29 Nov 2022 22:49:49 +0800
From:   Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
To:     Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Venky Shankar <vshankar@...hat.com>,
        Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@...hat.com>
Cc:     Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ceph: mark directory as non-complete complete after
 loading key


On 29/11/2022 22:32, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 3:15 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/11/2022 18:39, Luís Henriques wrote:
>>> When setting a directory's crypt context, ceph_dir_clear_complete() needs to
>>> be called otherwise if it was complete before, any existing (old) dentry will
>>> still be valid.
>>>
>>> This patch adds a wrapper around __fscrypt_prepare_readdir() which will
>>> ensure a directory is marked as non-complete if key status changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>
>>> ---
>>> Hi Xiubo,
>>>
>>> Here's a rebase of this patch.  I did some testing but since this branch
>>> doesn't really have full fscrypt support, I couldn't even reproduce the
>>> bug.  So, my testing was limited.
>> I'm planing not to update the wip-fscrypt branch any more, except the IO
>> path related fixes, which may introduce potential bugs each time as before.
>>
>> Since the qa tests PR has finished and the tests have passed, so we are
>> planing to merge the first none IO part, around 27 patches. And then
>> pull the reset patches from wip-fscrypt branch.
> I'm not sure if merging metadata and I/O path patches separately
> makes sense.  What would a user do with just filename encryption?

Hi Ilya,

I think the IO ones should be followed soon.

Currently the filename ones have been well testes. And the contents will 
be by passed for now.

Since this is just for Dev Preview feature IMO it should be okay (?)

> Once fscrypt test suite is merged, I think we should let it bake
> for for a few weeks and then merge the whole thing together.

Talked with Jeff before we both agreed to split the patches to make it 
to be easier to handle.

But this also should be okay for me.

Venky, Greg

What do you think ?

Thanks.

- Xiubo


>
> Thanks,
>
>                  Ilya
>