Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp5496254yba; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxfStb+3KGvZB4BvSFSlhExaCbNJqdFpQryXVS9JIsfz8DDPDwQ1qSo+AT67EbDqMcHgboC X-Received: by 2002:a63:1820:: with SMTP id y32mr17801509pgl.287.1556665754296; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1556665754; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=AFHY/AO99VUM2wOubH4qjC8Cf9XPNDBJzzJYK67tcLswJhVTaw5vQciZSZRxvF7gDR fVMtgJ79DsDVx/V2wzlHirnP6lo2UVAXYKxDC6g6Ttid//byIsCwdtX990u6cfc3yNzI +6qJec5H9sKTD3ofT9JF/BIwiweHhF81KYO7TBIGeb7s44DkoYz80ghtyPaiyjE+gdre rOaRT7qdJNSdVeTOGMdlg58lIXEEp21iNDlT8TgAKpORPlWAy4f6KuQTRMj/JjFIx35h xdE/S2iuHVGUd1Q93TI/TVXkjXfUaJ554WZbtx3y/FGgZ7YuMw2eYYNlaOv/wQ9eUSMR x91Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=1m5vX+wJUfZ3iTPJFgBqIwmDcshpnspXL/F6mUmR5D4=; b=NikYXHOklViNId5JHZFawqVT848J7eJ/ufHWGBVk4lERw+iifCPWSxksu5As5pzB4n Q2zk2AyKze3E9mAtug5ROBCMyc6dLGKFcPAlVk0yqp9bJlp5Ora6yd83E2JCFHxDPt0G +5GBXWHWHlW8CXgxG9Q1rQa7wMiKW6Y1c2hP6tctKi5+AVKRGeOfFh3oC1F8Q5tdyQ5G whI6fu1k0ZiB4B88gvcanVfKnE2H7MJUTW+go0Uddy/yz2hLO4mvJmka3Qis3lnJdISz GF1k2A+1e8Zkzoh3pLyrm4gbAd10TLuPGeoP1hkfWCd2AqYe6qH5WTJe0lSKnoX5D4rM 75cA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=SR4PU50I; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s61si37069871plb.313.2019.04.30.16.08.49; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=SR4PU50I; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726123AbfD3XIo (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 19:08:44 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44402 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726086AbfD3XIo (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 19:08:44 -0400 Received: from gmail.com (unknown [104.132.1.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2555520854; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 23:08:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556665723; bh=J2V4xk+5wKE2yB/A9WdiJV6T4tnAMLRxNPNCtj9jca8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SR4PU50IpjiiE/2E7ygI/c9uL7kL9KMoNGzgCg5z3qU8jru7qcuZk795ziPs7WPH0 4CVd4Zp9AjEqAkJ0/IseaPzbsnjVe9UrQgy8/fSDRJqoLohq0S7l8d32G6kxtpoQeo Ea6eqFzFovHvOPkFNhmTsw94caM1sI9DMHL9ap+g= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:08:41 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Chandan Rajendra Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, hch@infradead.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jaegeuk@kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range Message-ID: <20190430230840.GE48973@gmail.com> References: <20190428043121.30925-1-chandan@linux.ibm.com> <20190428043121.30925-11-chandan@linux.ibm.com> <20190430171133.GC48973@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190430171133.GC48973@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks mapped by > > a page range. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > --- > > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct inode *inode, > > Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this function > actually does now. > > > { > > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > > + int i, page_nr_blks; > > int err; > > > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > > > > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling i_blocksize(). > > Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are filesystem-block-aligned, > since the code now assumes it. > > const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) > return -EINVAL; > > However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It looks like it > may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the next > 16-byte boundary. > > > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > > + > > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk_num, page, > > - ciphertext_page, len, offs, > > - gfp_flags); > > - if (err) > > - return ERR_PTR(err); > > - > > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > + lblk_num, page, > > + ciphertext_page, > > + i_blocksize(inode), offs, > > + gfp_flags); > > + if (err) > > + return ERR_PTR(err); Apparently ubifs does encrypt data shorter than the filesystem block size, so this part is wrong. I suggest we split this into two functions, fscrypt_encrypt_block_inplace() and fscrypt_encrypt_blocks(), so that it's conceptually simpler what each function does. Currently this works completely differently depending on whether the filesystem set FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES in its fscrypt_operations, which is weird. I also noticed that using fscrypt_ctx for writes seems to be unnecessary. AFAICS, page_private(bounce_page) could point directly to the pagecache page. That would simplify things a lot, especially since then fscrypt_ctx could be removed entirely after you convert reads to use read_callbacks_ctx. IMO, these would be worthwhile cleanups for fscrypt by themselves, without waiting for the read_callbacks stuff to be finalized. Finalizing the read_callbacks stuff will probably require reaching a consensus about how they should work with future filesystem features like fsverity and compression. So to move things forward, I'm considering sending out a series with the above cleanups for fscrypt, plus the equivalent of your patches: "fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range" "fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed out blocks of a page" "Add decryption support for sub-pagesized blocks" (fs/crypto/ part only) Then hopefully we can get all that applied for 5.3 so that fs/crypto/ itself is ready for blocksize != PAGE_SIZE; and get your changes to ext4_bio_write_page(), __ext4_block_zero_page_range(), and ext4_block_write_begin() applied too, so that ext4 is partially ready for encryption with blocksize != PAGE_SIZE. Then only the read_callbacks stuff will remain, to get encryption support into fs/mpage.c and fs/buffer.c. Do you think that's a good plan? Thanks! - Eric