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;
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 18:22:50 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc:     Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com, Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: Handle casefolding with encryption
Message-ID: <YCMZSjgUDtxaVem3@mit.edu>
References: <20210203090745.4103054-2-drosen@google.com>
 <56BC7E2D-A303-45AE-93B6-D8921189F604@dilger.ca>
 <YBrP4NXAsvveIpwA@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YBrP4NXAsvveIpwA@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 03:55:06AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > 
> > It looks like this change will break the dirdata feature, which is similarly
> > storing a data field beyond the end of the dirent. However, that feature also
> > provides for flags stored in the high bits of the type field to indicate
> > which of the fields are in use there.
> > The first byte of each field stores
> > the length, so it can be skipped even if the content is not understood.
> 
> Daniel, for context, the dirdata field is an out-of-tree feature which
> is used by Lustre, and so has fairly large deployed base.  So if there
> is a way that we can accomodate not breaking dirdata, that would be
> good.
> 
> Did the ext4 casefold+encryption implementation escape out to any
> Android handsets?

So from an OOB chat with Daniel, it appears that the ext4
casefold+encryption implementation did in fact escape out to Android
handsets.  So I think what we will need to do, ultiumately, is support
one way of supporting the casefold IV in the case where "encryption &&
casefold", and another way when "encryption && casefold && dirdata".

That's going to be a bit sucky, but I don't think it should be that
complex.  Daniel, Andreas, does that make sense to you?

	  	  	   	     	  	   - Ted