On 22.09.2016 21:49, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:50:54AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> ...otherwise an user can enable encryption for certain files even
>> when the filesystem is unable to support it.
>> Such a case would be a filesystem created by mkfs.ext4's default
>> settings, 1KiB block size. Ext4 supports encyption only when block size
>> is equal to PAGE_SIZE.
>> But this constraint is only checked when the encryption feature flag
>> is set.
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <>
>> ---
>>  fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
>> index 1bb7df5..9e9a73e 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
>> @@ -772,6 +772,9 @@ resizefs_out:
>>              struct fscrypt_policy policy;
>> +            if (!ext4_has_feature_encrypt(sb))
>> +                    return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>>              if (copy_from_user(&policy,
> Hi Richard,
> This is a good observation, and it happens this is already on my list of bugs 
> to
> address.  I had not previously considered the fact that it allows the 
> block_size
> == PAGE_SIZE restriction to be easily circumvented.
> Ted had actually pointed out that the reason this hasn't already been fixed is
> that some users, e.g. Android, do not set the feature flag but still expect 
> the
> filesystem encryption code to work.  Maybe he can chime in with regards to 
> when
> (if ever) it would make sense to make this change.

We could automatically enable the feature flag in 
if possible.
                if (!ext4_sb_has_crypto(sb)) {
                        if (sb_min_blocksize(sb, EXT4_MIN_BLOCK_SIZE) != 
                                return -EOPNOTSUPP;
                        else {
                                ext4_commit_super(sb, 1);

> It should be noted that f2fs appears to have the same bug as well, with 
> regards
> to the corresponding f2fs feature flag.  (Added Jaegeuk to the CC.)
> With regards to the proposed patch, I did notice that the code to handle
> EXT4_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_PWSALT, just below the modified code, calls
> ext4_sb_has_crypto() instead of ext4_has_feature_encrypt().  These are 
> actually
> the same thing, and ext4_sb_has_crypto() is only called from that one place.  
> I
> think the ioctl code should be consistent, so it may make sense to, as part of
> the patch, remove ext4_sb_has_crypto() and switch 
> to using ext4_has_feature_encrypt().


> Also, it seems the default block size for mkfs.ext4 is determined by a 
> heuristic
> and isn't guaranteed to be 1 KiB.  So the commit message probably should say
> something more general like "filesystems created with a block size other than

Ahh, I thought 1KiB is default, my bad. Will happily update the commit log.


Reply via email to