From: Glenn Washburn <development@efficientek.com>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: grub-devel@gnu.org, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cryptodisk: Move global variables into grub_cryptomount_args struct
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:05:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210913210515.5753cf48@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YT3hySlyb+UI45HD@ncase>
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 13:17:29 +0200
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 02:34:30AM +0000, Glenn Washburn wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:02:26 +0200
> > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:08:52AM -0500, Glenn Washburn wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Glenn Washburn <development@efficientek.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > grub-core/disk/cryptodisk.c | 26 +++++++++-----------------
> > > > include/grub/cryptodisk.h | 3 +++
> > > > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/grub-core/disk/cryptodisk.c
> > > > b/grub-core/disk/cryptodisk.c index b6cf1835d..00a671a59 100644
> > > > --- a/grub-core/disk/cryptodisk.c
> > > > +++ b/grub-core/disk/cryptodisk.c
> > > > @@ -984,9 +984,6 @@ grub_util_cryptodisk_get_uuid (grub_disk_t disk)
> > > >
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > -static int check_boot, have_it;
> > > > -static char *search_uuid;
> > > > -
> > > > static void
> > > > cryptodisk_close (grub_cryptodisk_t dev)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -1014,7 +1011,7 @@ grub_cryptodisk_scan_device_real (const char
> > > > *name,
> > > > FOR_CRYPTODISK_DEVS (cr)
> > > > {
> > > > - dev = cr->scan (source, search_uuid, check_boot);
> > > > + dev = cr->scan (source, cargs->search_uuid, cargs->check_boot);
> > > > if (grub_errno)
> > > > return grub_errno;
> > > > if (!dev)
> > > > @@ -1051,7 +1048,7 @@ grub_cryptodisk_scan_device_real (const char
> > > > *name,
> > > > grub_cryptodisk_insert (dev, name, source);
> > > >
> > > > - have_it = 1;
> > > > + cargs->found_uuid = 1;
> > > >
> > > > goto cleanup;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -1093,7 +1090,7 @@ grub_cryptodisk_cheat_mount (const char
> > > > *sourcedev, const char *cheat)
> > > > FOR_CRYPTODISK_DEVS (cr)
> > > > {
> > > > - dev = cr->scan (source, search_uuid, check_boot);
> > > > + dev = cr->scan (source, NULL, 0);
> > > > if (grub_errno)
> > > > return grub_errno;
> > > > if (!dev)
> > > > @@ -1137,7 +1134,7 @@ grub_cryptodisk_scan_device (const char *name,
> > > >
> > > > if (err)
> > > > grub_print_error ();
> > > > - return have_it && search_uuid ? 1 : 0;
> > > > + return (cargs->found_uuid && cargs->search_uuid) ? 1 : 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static grub_err_t
> > > > @@ -1155,7 +1152,6 @@ grub_cmd_cryptomount (grub_extcmd_context_t
> > > > ctxt, int argc, char **args) cargs.key_len =
> > > > grub_strlen(state[3].arg); }
> > > >
> > > > - have_it = 0;
> > > > if (state[0].set) /* uuid */
> > > > {
> > > > grub_cryptodisk_t dev;
> > > > @@ -1168,21 +1164,18 @@ grub_cmd_cryptomount (grub_extcmd_context_t
> > > > ctxt, int argc, char **args) return GRUB_ERR_NONE;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - check_boot = state[2].set;
> > > > - search_uuid = args[0];
> > > > + cargs.check_boot = state[2].set;
> > > > + cargs.search_uuid = args[0];
> > > > grub_device_iterate (&grub_cryptodisk_scan_device, &cargs);
> > > > - search_uuid = NULL;
> > > >
> > > > - if (!have_it)
> > > > + if (!cargs.found_uuid)
> > > > return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_ARGUMENT, "no such
> > > > cryptodisk found"); return GRUB_ERR_NONE;
> > > > }
> > > > else if (state[1].set || (argc == 0 && state[2].set)) /* -a|-b */
> > > > {
> > > > - search_uuid = NULL;
> > > > - check_boot = state[2].set;
> > > > + cargs.check_boot = state[2].set;
> > > > grub_device_iterate (&grub_cryptodisk_scan_device, &cargs);
> > > > - search_uuid = NULL;
> > > > return GRUB_ERR_NONE;
> > > > }
> > > > else
> > > > @@ -1194,8 +1187,7 @@ grub_cmd_cryptomount (grub_extcmd_context_t
> > > > ctxt, int argc, char **args) char *disklast = NULL;
> > > > grub_size_t len;
> > > >
> > > > - search_uuid = NULL;
> > > > - check_boot = state[2].set;
> > > > + cargs.check_boot = state[2].set;
> > > > diskname = args[0];
> > > > len = grub_strlen (diskname);
> > > > if (len && diskname[0] == '(' && diskname[len - 1] == ')')
> > > > diff --git a/include/grub/cryptodisk.h b/include/grub/cryptodisk.h
> > > > index 1070140d9..11062f43a 100644
> > > > --- a/include/grub/cryptodisk.h
> > > > +++ b/include/grub/cryptodisk.h
> > > > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ typedef gcry_err_code_t
> > > >
> > > > struct grub_cryptomount_args
> > > > {
> > > > + grub_uint32_t check_boot : 1;
> > > > + grub_uint32_t found_uuid : 1;
> > > > + char *search_uuid;
> > > > grub_uint8_t *key_data;
> > > > grub_size_t key_len;
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Aren't these parameters in a different scope than the key data? These
> > > are only used for device discovery via `scan()`, while the other ones
> > > are for decrypting the key. Do we want to split those up into two
> > > different structs?
> >
> > This struct is meant to be used for any data passed to the crypto
> > backend from cryptomount. All of those members are affected by
> > cryptomount options. So this struct isn't about anything in particular,
> > just a common set of data passed to the crypto backends via
> > cryptomount. So I don't think two structs would improve anything here.
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Glenn
>
> I'm mostly wondering about lifetimes of these parameters. They are used
> in different phases of the cryptomount: some are used only at the time
> of discovery, while others are used at decryption time, where it's not
> immediately clear which parameters are used when without having a look
> at the cryptodisk implementations. That's why I was thinking it might
> make more sense to split them up by those phases such that this becomes
> explicit.
>
> Patrick
Okay, I think I see what you're saying. Essentially, as someone wanting
to write a new crypto-backend, when I'm writing by scan function, how
do I know what fields in the cargs struct are valid (have been
assigned)? The answer would be to check if they are not NULL, and
otherwise they're available. I don't really see an issue.
Would your objection be alleviated by having cargs be redefined like so:
struct grub_cryptomount_args
{
struct {
grub_uint32_t check_boot : 1;
char *search_uuid;
} scan;
struct {
grub_uint8_t *key_data;
grub_size_t key_len;
} recover_key;
struct {
...
} common;
};
Then in scan you know you can only use scan and common structs. I have
a common because the detached header changes will be such that scan and
recover_key need to be provided with detached header. I think this way
is more than is needed at the present moment. If I'm still not getting
it, can you be a little more concrete in what is problematic and how
you think it could be changed to be better?
Glenn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-13 21:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-26 5:08 [PATCH 0/3] Refactor/improve cryptomount data passing to crypto modules Glenn Washburn
2021-08-26 5:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] cryptodisk: Add infrastructure to pass data from cryptomount to cryptodisk modules Glenn Washburn
2021-08-30 17:55 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2021-09-07 4:43 ` Glenn Washburn
2021-09-12 11:14 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2021-08-26 5:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] cryptodisk: Refactor password input out of crypto dev modules into cryptodisk Glenn Washburn
2021-08-26 5:08 ` [PATCH 3/3] cryptodisk: Move global variables into grub_cryptomount_args struct Glenn Washburn
2021-08-30 18:02 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2021-09-07 2:34 ` Glenn Washburn
2021-09-12 11:17 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2021-09-13 21:05 ` Glenn Washburn [this message]
2021-10-04 8:55 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2021-10-04 18:32 ` Glenn Washburn
2021-10-05 4:51 ` Glenn Washburn
2021-10-10 8:09 ` Patrick Steinhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210913210515.5753cf48@ubuntu \
--to=development@efficientek.com \
--cc=daniel.kiper@oracle.com \
--cc=grub-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.