From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@redhat.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] fs/buffer.c: support fsverity in block_read_full_folio()
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:56:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8rx/SPfnlYJJ8XD@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y7zV41MQWSUGo4fw@sol.localdomain>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 07:05:07PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 06:37:59PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 12:36:37 -0800 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > After each filesystem block (as represented by a buffer_head) has been
> > > read from disk by block_read_full_folio(), verify it if needed. The
> > > verification is done on the fsverity_read_workqueue. Also allow reads
> > > of verity metadata past i_size, as required by ext4.
> >
> > Sigh. Do we reeeeealy need to mess with buffer.c in this fashion? Did
> > any other subsystems feel a need to do this?
>
> ext4 is currently the only filesystem that uses block_read_full_folio() and that
> supports fsverity. However, since fsverity has a common infrastructure across
> filesystems, in fs/verity/, it makes sense to support it in the other filesystem
> infrastructure so that things aren't mutually exclusive for no reason.
>
> Note that this applies to fscrypt too, which block_read_full_folio() (previously
> block_read_full_page()) already supports since v5.5.
>
> If you'd prefer that block_read_full_folio() be copied into ext4, then modified
> to support fscrypt and fsverity, and then the fscrypt support removed from the
> original copy, we could do that. That seems more like a workaround to avoid
> modifying certain files than an actually better solution, but it could be done.
>
> >
> > > This is needed to support fsverity on ext4 filesystems where the
> > > filesystem block size is less than the page size.
> >
> > Does any real person actually do this?
>
> Yes, on systems with the page size larger than 4K, the ext4 filesystem block
> size is often smaller than the page size. ext4 encryption (fscrypt) originally
> had the same limitation, and Chandan Rajendra from IBM did significant work to
> solve it a few years ago, with the changes landing in v5.5.
>
> - Eric
Any more thoughts on this from Andrew, the ext4 maintainers, or anyone else?
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-20 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-23 20:36 [PATCH v2 00/11] fsverity: support for non-4K pages Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] fsverity: use unsigned long for level_start Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] fsverity: simplify Merkle tree readahead size calculation Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] fsverity: store log2(digest_size) precomputed Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] fsverity: use EFBIG for file too large to enable verity Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] fsverity: replace fsverity_hash_page() with fsverity_hash_block() Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] fsverity: support verification with tree block size < PAGE_SIZE Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] fsverity: support enabling " Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] ext4: simplify ext4_readpage_limit() Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] f2fs: simplify f2fs_readpage_limit() Eric Biggers
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] fs/buffer.c: support fsverity in block_read_full_folio() Eric Biggers
2023-01-10 2:37 ` Andrew Morton
2023-01-10 3:05 ` Eric Biggers
2023-01-20 19:56 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2023-01-21 6:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-12-23 20:36 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] ext4: allow verity with fs block size < PAGE_SIZE Eric Biggers
2023-01-04 6:38 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] fsverity: support for non-4K pages Ojaswin Mujoo
2023-01-04 7:25 ` Eric Biggers
2023-01-05 11:24 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2023-01-09 17:38 ` Eric Biggers
2023-01-09 19:34 ` Andrey Albershteyn
2023-01-10 3:10 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-03 22:01 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-28 1:01 ` [f2fs-dev] " patchwork-bot+f2fs
2023-02-28 1:30 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-28 3:53 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=Y8rx/SPfnlYJJ8XD@sol.localdomain \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=aalbersh@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@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).