Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: /wZTq7bzQ0E2k8W/6XYNSgW1CO7wELK0a4a0VcxVCIN37lfF+DtwwWlY/1ZF2w4zwxoVHaQFTi
 otbtaWhvrEYg==
IronPort-SDR: cGlxBQg4ApLsZNxgWwU23EqDS+zS9AKNnudf6RGW9EJiuVSZKIvfqcnZn9JXpx2LoQzprTKucW
 nOfLuM2iPAbA==
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:48:09 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] fs/ext4: Disallow verity if inode is DAX
Message-ID: <20200416034809.GE2309605@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20200414040030.1802884-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20200414040030.1802884-3-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20200415120002.GE6126@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20200415191451.GA2305801@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20200416012901.GA816@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200416012901.GA816@sol.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:29:01PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:14:52PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 02:00:02PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 13-04-20 21:00:24, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Verity and DAX are incompatible.  Changing the DAX mode due to a verity
> > > > flag change is wrong without a corresponding address_space_operations
> > > > update.
> > > > 
> > > > Make the 2 options mutually exclusive by returning an error if DAX was
> > > > set first.
> > > > 
> > > > (Setting DAX is already disabled if Verity is set first.)
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/ext4/verity.c | 3 +++
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/verity.c b/fs/ext4/verity.c
> > > > index dc5ec724d889..ce3f9a198d3b 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/ext4/verity.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/verity.c
> > > > @@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ static int ext4_begin_enable_verity(struct file *filp)
> > > >  	handle_t *handle;
> > > >  	int err;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_DAX(inode)))
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Hum, one question, is there a reason for WARN_ON_ONCE()? If I understand
> > > correctly, user could normally trigger this, couldn't he?
> > 
> > Ok.  I did not think this through but I did think about this.  I was following
> > the code from the encryption side which issues a warning and was thinking that
> > would be a good way to alert the user they are doing something wrong...
> > 
> > I think you are right about both of them but we also need to put something in
> > the verity, dax, and ...  (I can't find a file in Documentation which talks
> > about encryption right off) documentation files....  For verity something like.
> > 
> > <quote>
> > Verity and DAX
> > --------------
> > 
> > Verity and DAX are not compatible and attempts to set both of these flags on a
> > file will fail.
> > </quote>
> > 
> > And the same thing in the DAX doc?
> > 
> > And where would be appropriate for the encrypt doc?
> > 
> 
> Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst mentions that DAX isn't supported on
> encrypted files, but it doesn't say what happens if someone tries to do it
> anyway.  Feel free to improve the documentation.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Ira