On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 5:13:21 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote:
> Hi Chandan,
>
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:26:46PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > In order to have a common code base for fscrypt "post read" processing
> > for all filesystems which support encryption, this commit removes
> > filesystem specific build config option (e.g. CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION)
> > and replaces it with a build option (i.e. CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION) whose
> > value affects all the filesystems making use of fscrypt.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chan...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> [...]
> > -config F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION
> > - bool "F2FS Encryption"
> > - depends on F2FS_FS
> > - depends on F2FS_FS_XATTR
> > - select FS_ENCRYPTION
> > - help
> > - Enable encryption of f2fs files and directories. This
> > - feature is similar to ecryptfs, but it is more memory
> > - efficient since it avoids caching the encrypted and
> > - decrypted pages in the page cache.
> > -
> [...]
> > -config UBIFS_FS_ENCRYPTION
> > - bool "UBIFS Encryption"
> > - depends on UBIFS_FS && UBIFS_FS_XATTR && BLOCK
> > - select FS_ENCRYPTION
> > - default n
> > - help
> > - Enable encryption of UBIFS files and directories. This
> > - feature is similar to ecryptfs, but it is more memory
> > - efficient since it avoids caching the encrypted and
> > - decrypted pages in the page cache.
>
> Will it cause problems that now f2fs encryption can be "enabled" without
> F2FS_FS_XATTR, and ubifs encryption without UBIFS_FS_XATTR && BLOCK?
>
> Otherwise I think this patch looks fine. I'm a bit concerned about the bloat
> from making FS_ENCRYPTION non-modular, but given that it will make sharing I/O
> code much easier, it's probably worthwhile.
>
> It would help to strip down the dependencies of FS_ENCRYPTION to just the
> stuff
> needed for just AES-256-XTS and AES-256-CTS. I already sent out a patch a
> couple months ago (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10589319/) to remove
> CONFIG_CTR which isn't used at all; I'll remind Ted to apply that. But we
> could
> also drop CONFIG_SHA256, which is only needed for AES-128-CBC contents
> encryption. If we do that, it should be a separate patch, though.
Hi Eric,
fscrypt_valid_enc_modes() allows FS_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_128_CBC to be used for
encryption of file's contents. This is consistent with what you had mentioned
above.
static inline bool fscrypt_valid_enc_modes(u32 contents_mode,
u32 filenames_mode)
{
if (contents_mode == FS_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_128_CBC &&
filenames_mode == FS_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_128_CTS)
return true;
if (contents_mode == FS_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_256_XTS &&
filenames_mode == FS_ENCRYPTION_MODE_AES_256_CTS)
return true;
return false;
}
Hence FS_ENCRYPTION does need to have AES-128-CBC and by extension SHA256 code
compiled in right?
--
chandan
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
