From: Nikolai Joukov <kolya@cs.sunysb.edu>
To: Ric Wheeler <ric@emc.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>,
Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com>,
Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Shred mount option for ext4?
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:52:42 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.53.0611011142120.13266@compserv1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4548CD94.2030406@emc.com>
> >>1. One of the patches performs N overwrites with configurable patterns
> >>(can comply with NIST and NISPOM standards). Because of the transaction
> >>compaction we had to separately add overwriting as separate transactions.
> >>Fortunately, the whole procedure is still atomic due to the orphan list.
> >>The problem that we have right now is per-file syncing of dirty data
> >>buffers between overwrites. We sync the whole device at the moment.
> >
> >Did anyone discuss doing this with crypto instead of actually overwriting
> >the whole file? It would be pretty easy to store a per-file crypto key
> >in each inode as an EA, then to "delete" the file all that would be
> >needed would be to erase the key in a secure matter (which is a great
> >deal easier because inodes don't move around on disk).
Encryption is another possible secure deletion solution. Usually it is
used by systems that already encrypt the data anyways. In that case the
key management and run-time overhead costs are already paid.
> >The drawback is there is a runtime overhead to encrypt/decrypt the file
The difference is that in case of encryption there are overheads for read
and write operations whereas in case of overwriting there are overheads
only for infrequent unlink/truncate operations.
> I think that having the data encrypted on disk is a generically useful
> feature, but in this case it might not count for much since the key is
> stored right next to the data in that EA...
Agreed. Key management is a big issue in any encryption system. In this
particular solution the key management is simple but there is also no
real protection of the live data.
Nikolai.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-01 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-31 20:14 Shred mount option for ext4? Nikolai Joukov
2006-11-01 16:17 ` Andreas Dilger
2006-11-01 16:38 ` Ric Wheeler
2006-11-01 16:52 ` Nikolai Joukov [this message]
2006-11-01 17:20 ` Erez Zadok
2006-11-01 16:57 ` Wolber, Richard C
2006-11-20 10:52 ` Rupesh Thakare
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-10-31 10:36 Samuel Tardieu
2006-10-31 12:32 ` Erik Mouw
2006-10-31 13:02 ` Samuel Tardieu
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=Pine.GSO.4.53.0611011142120.13266@compserv1 \
--to=kolya@cs.sunysb.edu \
--cc=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=erik@harddisk-recovery.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ric@emc.com \
--cc=sam@rfc1149.net \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).