Hi Ted,

 I appreciate your email, thanks for taking time to review.

 Before I wrote the current version, I had a version which used
 fs/crypto. BTRFS needs a highly scalable solution, I am experimenting
 and evaluating, integration with fs/crypto is needed, I will discuss
 that in the fsdevel ML when its appropriate.

 Data center storage requisites and Scalability is very important
 to BTRFS. Based on my experiences with the engineered storage(s),
 of course I do have the requirement list in the background for
 this project. Chris mentioned one of it.

 Yes, we need crypto experts to review the document or in other words
 its not integration-ready unless crypto experts has reviewed/approved.

 Thanks. I shall cc you for further development on this.

Regds, -Anand

On 09/19/2016 11:15 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
(I'm not on linux-btrfs@, so please keep me on the cc list.  Or
perhpas better yet, maybe we can move discussion to the linux-fsdevel@

Hi Anand,

After reading this thread on the web archives, and seeing that some
folks seem to be a bit confused about "vfs level crypto", fs/crypto,
and ext4/f2fs encryption, I thought I would give a few comments.

First of all, these are all the same thing.  Initially ext4 encryption
was implemented targetting ChromeOS as the initial customer, and as a
replacement for ecryptfs.  Folks have already pointed you at the
design document[1].  Also of interest is the is the 2015 Linux
Security Symposium slides set[2].  The first deployed use of this was
for Android N's File-based Encryption and Direct boot[3]; a technical
description which left out some of the product details (since LSS 2016
was before the Android N release) can be found at the 2016 LSS

[2] http://kernsec.org/files/lss2014/Halcrow_EXT4_Encryption.pdf
[4] http://kernsec.org/files/lss2015/halcrow.pdf

The other thing that perhaps would be worth noting is that Michael
Halcrow started this as an encryption/security expert who had dabbled
in file systems, while I was someone for whom encryption/security is a
hobby (although in a previous life I was the tech lead for Kerberos
and chaired the IPSEC working group) who was a file system expert.  In
order to do file system security well, you need people who are well
versed in both discplines working together.

With all due respect, the fact that you chose counter mode and how use
used it pretty clearly demonstrates that you would be well advised to
find someone who is a crypto expert to collaborate with you --- or use
the fs/crypto framework since it was designed and vetted by multiple
crypto experts as well as file system experts.

Having someone who is a product manager who can discuss with you
specific goals is also important, because there are lots of tradeoffs
and lots of design choices ---- and so what you chose to do is (or at
least should be!)  very much dependent on your threat model, who is
planning on using the feature, what you can and can not upon via-a-vis
hardware support, performance requirements, and so on.

Secondly, in terms of how it all works.  Each user as a "master key"
which is stored on a keyring.  We use a hash of the key to serve as
the key identifier, and associated with each inode we store a nonce (a
random unique string) and the key identifier.  We use the nonce and
the user's master key to generate a unique key for that inode.

That key is used to protect the contents of the data file, and to
encrypt filenames and symlink targets --- since filenames can leak
significant information about what the user is doing.  (For example,
in the downloads directory of their web browser, leaking filenames is
just as good as leaking part of their browsing history.)

As far as using the fs/crypto infrastructure, it's actually pretty
simple.  The file system needs to provide a flag indicating whether or
not the file is encrypted, and support extended attributes.  When you
create an inode in an encrypted directory, you call
fscrypt_inherit_context() and the fscrypto layer will take care of
creating the necessary xattr for the per-inode key.  When you need
open a encrypted file, or operate on an encrypted inode, you call
fscrypt_get_encryption_info() on the inode.  The per-inode encryption
key is cached in the i_crypt_info structure, which hangs off of the
struct inode.

When you write to an encrypted file, you call fscrypt_encrypt_page(),
which returns a struct page with the encrypted contents to be written.
After the write is completed (or in the error case), you call
fscrypt_restore_control_page() to release encrypted page.

To read from an encrypted page, you call fscrypt_get_ctx() to get an
encryption context, which gets stashed in the bio's bi_private
pointer.  (If btrfs is already using bi_private, then you'll need to
add a field in the structure which hangs off of bi_private to stash
the encryption context.)  After the read completes, you call
fscrypt_decrypt_bio_pages() to decrypt all of the pages read as part
of the read/write operation.

It's actually relatively straightforward to use.  If you have any
questions please feel free to ask on linux-fsdevel.

As far as poeple commenting that it might be better to encrypt on the
extent level --- the reason why we didn't chose that path is because
while it does make it easier to do authenticated encryption modes, the
downside is that you can only do the data integrity check if you read
in the entire extent.  This has obvious memory utilization impacts and
will also impact your 4k random read/write performance.

We do have a solution in mind to solve the authenticated encryption
problem; in fact, an intern has recently finished a prototype using
Authenticated Skip Lists[5][6].  Hopefully we'll be able to get some
patches for review in the near future.

[5] http://cs.brown.edu/cgc/stms/papers/hashskip.pdf
[6] http://cs.brown.edu/cgc/stms/papers/discex2001.pdf

One of the challenges with data integrity is that you need to be able
to update authentication data and the data blocks atomically, or else
you could end up breaking the file on a crash.  For ext4, we're going
to simply only support data integrity for those files which are
written and then closed, and if you crash, the file which is being
written may not have valid data integrity checksums.  This is good
enough for many use cases, since most files are not updated after they
are initially written.  Obviously, btrfs would be able to do much
better since it has COW properties.


                                                        - Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to