From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fscrypt / ext4: make test_dummy_encryption require a keyring key
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:10:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170105151059.egz6an7wfirygdr6@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170105001606.GC21696@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:16:06PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> I'm fine with your proposed version, though I'm not convinced it's really any
> better than mine, since it basically just moves the "hack" from
> fscrypt_inherit_context() to fscrypt_get_encryption_info(). The reason I
> preferred it in fscrypt_inherit_context() was that allowing
> fscrypt_get_encryption_info() to work on unencrypted files is kind of weird and
> could allow for confusing scenarios where a previously existing unencrypted file
> is accidentally treated as an encrypted one --- though that would require a
> missing ext4_encrypted_inode() check of course.
Except that you *always* need to call ext4_encrypt_inode() before you
call fscrypt_get_encryption_info(), because otherwise it becomes a
performance disaster in the no encryption case, because we would be
constantly doing failing xattr lookups.
It also made for some especially tangled logic, which I noticed when
you had to make a change in fs/ext4/namei.c:
if ((ext4_encrypted_inode(dir) || <-----------------------
DUMMY_ENCRYPTION_ENABLED(EXT4_SB(dir->i_sb))) &&
(S_ISREG(mode) || S_ISDIR(mode) || S_ISLNK(mode))) {
- err = fscrypt_get_encryption_info(dir);
- if (err)
- return ERR_PTR(err);
- if (!fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir))
- return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
+ if (ext4_encrypted_inode(dir)) { <-------------------
+ err = fscrypt_get_encryption_info(dir);
+ if (err)
+ return ERR_PTR(err);
+ if (!fscrypt_has_encryption_key(dir))
+ return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
+ }
if (!handle)
Your patch required the addition of a *second* call to
ext4_encrypted_inode() or else the call to
fscrypt_get_encryption_info() would fail in the test_dummy_encryption
case.
Not having hacks in the fscrypt_inherit_context() case also has the
happy advantage that we test the normal context inheritance code path
when creating files in the (unencrypted) root directory.
- Ted
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-05 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-13 6:52 [PATCH] fscrypt / ext4: make test_dummy_encryption require a keyring key Eric Biggers
2017-01-02 20:43 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-01-05 0:16 ` Eric Biggers
2017-01-05 15:10 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
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=20170105151059.egz6an7wfirygdr6@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=ebiggers3@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).