From: Luca Boccassi <Luca.Boccassi@microsoft.com>
To: "ebiggers@kernel.org" <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
"linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com" <Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [fsverity-utils PATCH 1/2] lib: add libfsverity_enable() and libfsverity_enable_with_sig()
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 11:52:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cf3b4508c2fa79381b3c0f7fb6406b55f1f50e33.camel@microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201114001529.185751-2-ebiggers@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5441 bytes --]
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:15 -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>
> Add convenience functions that wrap FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY but take a
> 'struct libfsverity_merkle_tree_params' instead of
> 'struct fsverity_enable_arg'. This is useful because it allows
> libfsverity users to deal with one common struct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> ---
> include/libfsverity.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/enable.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> programs/cmd_enable.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------
> 3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/enable.c
>
> diff --git a/include/libfsverity.h b/include/libfsverity.h
> index 8f78a13..a8aecaf 100644
> --- a/include/libfsverity.h
> +++ b/include/libfsverity.h
> @@ -112,6 +112,42 @@ libfsverity_sign_digest(const struct libfsverity_digest *digest,
> const struct libfsverity_signature_params *sig_params,
> uint8_t **sig_ret, size_t *sig_size_ret);
>
> +/**
> + * libfsverity_enable() - Enable fs-verity on a file
> + * @fd: read-only file descriptor to the file
> + * @params: pointer to the Merkle tree parameters
> + *
> + * This is a simple wrapper around the FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY ioctl.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, -EINVAL for invalid arguments, or a negative errno
> + * value from the FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY ioctl. See
> + * Documentation/filesystems/fsverity.rst in the kernel source tree for
> + * the possible error codes from FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY.
> + */
> +int
> +libfsverity_enable(int fd, const struct libfsverity_merkle_tree_params *params);
> +
> +/**
> + * libfsverity_enable_with_sig() - Enable fs-verity on a file, with a signature
> + * @fd: read-only file descriptor to the file
> + * @params: pointer to the Merkle tree parameters
> + * @sig: pointer to the file's signature
> + * @sig_size: size of the file's signature in bytes
> + *
> + * Like libfsverity_enable(), but allows specifying a built-in signature (i.e. a
> + * singature created with libfsverity_sign_digest()) to associate with the file.
> + * This is only needed if the in-kernel signature verification support is being
> + * used; it is not needed if signatures are being verified in userspace.
> + *
> + * If @sig is NULL and @sig_size is 0, this is the same as libfsverity_enable().
> + *
> + * Return: See libfsverity_enable().
> + */
> +int
> +libfsverity_enable_with_sig(int fd,
> + const struct libfsverity_merkle_tree_params *params,
> + const uint8_t *sig, size_t sig_size);
> +
I don't have a strong preference either way, but any specific reason
for a separate function rather than treating sig == NULL and sig_size
== 0 as a signature-less enable? For clients deploying files, it would
appear easier to me to just use empty parameters to choose between
signed/not signed, without having to also change which API to call. But
maybe there's some use case I'm missing where it's better to be
explicit.
> /**
> * libfsverity_find_hash_alg_by_name() - Find hash algorithm by name
> * @name: Pointer to name of hash algorithm
> diff --git a/lib/enable.c b/lib/enable.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..dd77292
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/enable.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
> +/*
> + * Implementation of libfsverity_enable() and libfsverity_enable_with_sig().
> + *
> + * Copyright 2020 Google LLC
> + *
> + * Use of this source code is governed by an MIT-style
> + * license that can be found in the LICENSE file or at
> + * https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT.
> + */
> +
> +#include "lib_private.h"
> +
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
> +
> +LIBEXPORT int
> +libfsverity_enable(int fd, const struct libfsverity_merkle_tree_params *params)
> +{
> + return libfsverity_enable_with_sig(fd, params, NULL, 0);
> +}
> +
> +LIBEXPORT int
> +libfsverity_enable_with_sig(int fd,
> + const struct libfsverity_merkle_tree_params *params,
> + const uint8_t *sig, size_t sig_size)
> +{
> + struct fsverity_enable_arg arg = {};
> +
> + if (!params) {
> + libfsverity_error_msg("missing required parameters for enable");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + arg.version = 1;
> + arg.hash_algorithm = params->hash_algorithm;
> + arg.block_size = params->block_size;
> + arg.salt_size = params->salt_size;
> + arg.salt_ptr = (uintptr_t)params->salt;
> + arg.sig_size = sig_size;
> + arg.sig_ptr = (uintptr_t)sig;
> +
> + if (ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_ENABLE_VERITY, &arg) != 0)
> + return -errno;
> + return 0;
> +}
I'm ok with leaving file handling to clients - after all, depending on
infrastructure/bindings/helper libs/whatnot, file handling might vary
wildly.
But could we at least provide a default for block size and hash algo,
if none are specified?
While file handling is a generic concept and expected to be a solved
problem for most programs, figuring out what the default block size
should be or what hash algorithm to use is, are fs-verity specific
concepts that most clients (at least those that I deal with) wouldn't
care about in any way outside of this use, and would want it to "just
work".
Apart from these 2 comments, I ran a quick test of the 2 new series,
and everything works as expected. Thanks!
--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-16 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-14 0:15 [fsverity-utils PATCH 0/2] Add libfsverity_enable() API Eric Biggers
2020-11-14 0:15 ` [fsverity-utils PATCH 1/2] lib: add libfsverity_enable() and libfsverity_enable_with_sig() Eric Biggers
2020-11-16 11:52 ` Luca Boccassi [this message]
2020-11-16 17:41 ` Eric Biggers
2020-11-16 17:50 ` Luca Boccassi
2020-11-16 18:42 ` Eric Biggers
2020-11-16 19:28 ` Luca Boccassi
2020-11-14 0:15 ` [fsverity-utils PATCH 2/2] programs/fsverity: share code to parse tree parameters Eric Biggers
2020-11-16 11:32 ` Luca Boccassi
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=cf3b4508c2fa79381b3c0f7fb6406b55f1f50e33.camel@microsoft.com \
--to=luca.boccassi@microsoft.com \
--cc=Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
/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