Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range
Hi Chandan, On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 11:22:05AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:59:01 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > > Hi Chandan, > > > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 08:19:35PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 4:38:41 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > > > > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks > > > > > > mapped by > > > > > > a page range. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > > > > > --- > > > > > > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 + > > > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > > > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > > > > > > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > > > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > > > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const > > > > > > struct inode *inode, > > > > > > > > > > Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this > > > > > function > > > > > actually does now. > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > > > > > > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > > > > > > + int i, page_nr_blks; > > > > > > int err; > > > > > > > > > > > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling > > > > > i_blocksize(). > > > > > > > > > > Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are > > > > > filesystem-block-aligned, > > > > > since the code now assumes it. > > > > > > > > > > const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); > > > > > > > > > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It > > > > > looks like it > > > > > may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the > > > > > next > > > > > 16-byte boundary. > > > > > > > > > > > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > > > > > > + > > > > > > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > > > > > > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > > > > > > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > > > > lblk_num, page, > > > > > > -ciphertext_page, len, offs, > > > > > > -gfp_flags); > > > > > > - if (err) > > > > > > - return ERR_PTR(err); > > > > > > - > > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > > > > > > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > > > > + lblk_num, page, > > > > > > + ciphertext_page, > > > > > > + i_blocksize(inode), > > > > > > offs, > > > > > > + gfp_flags); > > > > > > + if (err) > > > > > > + return ERR_PTR(err); > > > > > > > > Apparently ubifs does encrypt data shorter than the filesystem block > > > > size, so > > > > this part is wrong. > > > > > > > > I suggest we split this into two functions, > > > > fscrypt_encrypt_block_inplace() and > > > > fscrypt_encrypt_blocks(), so that it's conceptually simpler what each > > > > function > > > > does. Currently this works completely differently depending on whether > > > > the > > > > filesystem set FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES in its fscrypt_operations, which is > > > > weird. > > > > > > > > I also noticed that using fscrypt_ctx for writes seems to be > > > > unnecessary. > > > > AFAICS, page_private(bounce_page) could point directly to the pagecache > > > > page. > > > > That would simplify things a lot, especially since then fscrypt_ctx > > > > could be > > > > removed entirely after you convert reads to use read_callbacks_ctx. > > > > > > > > IMO, these would be worthwhile cleanups for fscrypt by themselves, > > > > without > > > > waiting for the read_callbacks stuff to be finalized. Finalizing the > > > > read_callbacks stuff will probably require reaching a consensus about > > > > how they > > > > should work with future filesystem features like fsverity and > > > > compression. > > > > > > > > So to move things forward, I'm considering sending out a series with > > > > the above > > > > cleanups for fscrypt, plus the equivalent of your patches: > > > > > > > > "fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page > > > > range" > > > > "fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed out blocks of a page" > > > > "Add decryption support for sub-pagesized blocks" (fs/
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:59:01 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > Hi Chandan, > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 08:19:35PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 4:38:41 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > > > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks mapped > > > > > by > > > > > a page range. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > > > > --- > > > > > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 + > > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > > > > > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct > > > > > inode *inode, > > > > > > > > Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this > > > > function > > > > actually does now. > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > > > > > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > > > > > + int i, page_nr_blks; > > > > > int err; > > > > > > > > > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling > > > > i_blocksize(). > > > > > > > > Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are > > > > filesystem-block-aligned, > > > > since the code now assumes it. > > > > > > > > const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); > > > > > > > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It looks > > > > like it > > > > may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the > > > > next > > > > 16-byte boundary. > > > > > > > > > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > > > > > + > > > > > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > > > > > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > > > > > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > > > lblk_num, page, > > > > > - ciphertext_page, len, offs, > > > > > - gfp_flags); > > > > > - if (err) > > > > > - return ERR_PTR(err); > > > > > - > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > > > > > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > > > + lblk_num, page, > > > > > + ciphertext_page, > > > > > + i_blocksize(inode), > > > > > offs, > > > > > + gfp_flags); > > > > > + if (err) > > > > > + return ERR_PTR(err); > > > > > > Apparently ubifs does encrypt data shorter than the filesystem block > > > size, so > > > this part is wrong. > > > > > > I suggest we split this into two functions, > > > fscrypt_encrypt_block_inplace() and > > > fscrypt_encrypt_blocks(), so that it's conceptually simpler what each > > > function > > > does. Currently this works completely differently depending on whether > > > the > > > filesystem set FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES in its fscrypt_operations, which is > > > weird. > > > > > > I also noticed that using fscrypt_ctx for writes seems to be unnecessary. > > > AFAICS, page_private(bounce_page) could point directly to the pagecache > > > page. > > > That would simplify things a lot, especially since then fscrypt_ctx could > > > be > > > removed entirely after you convert reads to use read_callbacks_ctx. > > > > > > IMO, these would be worthwhile cleanups for fscrypt by themselves, without > > > waiting for the read_callbacks stuff to be finalized. Finalizing the > > > read_callbacks stuff will probably require reaching a consensus about how > > > they > > > should work with future filesystem features like fsverity and compression. > > > > > > So to move things forward, I'm considering sending out a series with the > > > above > > > cleanups for fscrypt, plus the equivalent of your patches: > > > > > > "fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range" > > > "fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed out blocks of a page" > > > "Add decryption support for sub-pagesized blocks" (fs/crypto/ part only) > > > > > > Then hopefully we can get all that applied for 5.3 so that fs/crypto/ > > > itself is > > > ready for blocksize != PAGE_SIZE; and get your changes to > > > ext4_bio_write_page(), > > > __ext4_block_zero_page_range(), and ext4_block_write_begin() applied too, > > > so
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range
Hi Chandan, On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 08:19:35PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 4:38:41 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks mapped by > > > > a page range. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > > > --- > > > > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 + > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct > > > > inode *inode, > > > > > > Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this function > > > actually does now. > > > > > > > { > > > > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > > > > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > > > > + int i, page_nr_blks; > > > > int err; > > > > > > > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > > > > > > > > > > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling > > > i_blocksize(). > > > > > > Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are > > > filesystem-block-aligned, > > > since the code now assumes it. > > > > > > const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); > > > > > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It looks > > > like it > > > may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the next > > > 16-byte boundary. > > > > > > > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > > > > + > > > > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > > > > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > > > > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > > lblk_num, page, > > > > -ciphertext_page, len, offs, > > > > -gfp_flags); > > > > - if (err) > > > > - return ERR_PTR(err); > > > > - > > > > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > > > > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > > + lblk_num, page, > > > > + ciphertext_page, > > > > + i_blocksize(inode), > > > > offs, > > > > + gfp_flags); > > > > + if (err) > > > > + return ERR_PTR(err); > > > > Apparently ubifs does encrypt data shorter than the filesystem block size, > > so > > this part is wrong. > > > > I suggest we split this into two functions, fscrypt_encrypt_block_inplace() > > and > > fscrypt_encrypt_blocks(), so that it's conceptually simpler what each > > function > > does. Currently this works completely differently depending on whether the > > filesystem set FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES in its fscrypt_operations, which is weird. > > > > I also noticed that using fscrypt_ctx for writes seems to be unnecessary. > > AFAICS, page_private(bounce_page) could point directly to the pagecache > > page. > > That would simplify things a lot, especially since then fscrypt_ctx could be > > removed entirely after you convert reads to use read_callbacks_ctx. > > > > IMO, these would be worthwhile cleanups for fscrypt by themselves, without > > waiting for the read_callbacks stuff to be finalized. Finalizing the > > read_callbacks stuff will probably require reaching a consensus about how > > they > > should work with future filesystem features like fsverity and compression. > > > > So to move things forward, I'm considering sending out a series with the > > above > > cleanups for fscrypt, plus the equivalent of your patches: > > > > "fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range" > > "fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed out blocks of a page" > > "Add decryption support for sub-pagesized blocks" (fs/crypto/ part only) > > > > Then hopefully we can get all that applied for 5.3 so that fs/crypto/ > > itself is > > ready for blocksize != PAGE_SIZE; and get your changes to > > ext4_bio_write_page(), > > __ext4_block_zero_page_range(), and ext4_block_write_begin() applied too, so > > that ext4 is partially ready for encryption with blocksize != PAGE_SIZE. > > > > Then only the read_callbacks stuff will remain, to get encryption support > > into > > fs/mpage.c and fs/buffer.c. Do you think that's a good plan? > > Hi Eric, > > IMHO, I will continue posting the next v
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 4:38:41 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks mapped by > > > a page range. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > > --- > > > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 + > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > > > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct > > > inode *inode, > > > > Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this function > > actually does now. > > > > > { > > > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > > > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > > > + int i, page_nr_blks; > > > int err; > > > > > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > > > > > > > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling i_blocksize(). > > > > Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are > > filesystem-block-aligned, > > since the code now assumes it. > > > > const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); > > > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It looks like > > it > > may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the next > > 16-byte boundary. > > > > > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > > > + > > > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > > > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > > > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk_num, page, > > > - ciphertext_page, len, offs, > > > - gfp_flags); > > > - if (err) > > > - return ERR_PTR(err); > > > - > > > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > > > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > > + lblk_num, page, > > > + ciphertext_page, > > > + i_blocksize(inode), offs, > > > + gfp_flags); > > > + if (err) > > > + return ERR_PTR(err); > > Apparently ubifs does encrypt data shorter than the filesystem block size, so > this part is wrong. > > I suggest we split this into two functions, fscrypt_encrypt_block_inplace() > and > fscrypt_encrypt_blocks(), so that it's conceptually simpler what each function > does. Currently this works completely differently depending on whether the > filesystem set FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES in its fscrypt_operations, which is weird. > > I also noticed that using fscrypt_ctx for writes seems to be unnecessary. > AFAICS, page_private(bounce_page) could point directly to the pagecache page. > That would simplify things a lot, especially since then fscrypt_ctx could be > removed entirely after you convert reads to use read_callbacks_ctx. > > IMO, these would be worthwhile cleanups for fscrypt by themselves, without > waiting for the read_callbacks stuff to be finalized. Finalizing the > read_callbacks stuff will probably require reaching a consensus about how they > should work with future filesystem features like fsverity and compression. > > So to move things forward, I'm considering sending out a series with the above > cleanups for fscrypt, plus the equivalent of your patches: > > "fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range" > "fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed out blocks of a page" > "Add decryption support for sub-pagesized blocks" (fs/crypto/ part only) > > Then hopefully we can get all that applied for 5.3 so that fs/crypto/ itself > is > ready for blocksize != PAGE_SIZE; and get your changes to > ext4_bio_write_page(), > __ext4_block_zero_page_range(), and ext4_block_write_begin() applied too, so > that ext4 is partially ready for encryption with blocksize != PAGE_SIZE. > > Then only the read_callbacks stuff will remain, to get encryption support into > fs/mpage.c and fs/buffer.c. Do you think that's a good plan? Hi Eric, IMHO, I will continue posting the next version of the current patchset and if there are no serious reservations from FS maintainers the "read callbacks" patchset can be merged. In such a scenario, the cleanups being non-complicated, can be merged later. -- chandan ___ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks mapped by > > a page range. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > --- > > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 + > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct inode > > *inode, > > Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this function > actually does now. > > > { > > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > > + int i, page_nr_blks; > > int err; > > > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > > > > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling i_blocksize(). > > Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are filesystem-block-aligned, > since the code now assumes it. > > const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) > return -EINVAL; > > However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It looks like it > may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the next > 16-byte boundary. > > > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > > + > > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk_num, page, > > -ciphertext_page, len, offs, > > -gfp_flags); > > - if (err) > > - return ERR_PTR(err); > > - > > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > > + lblk_num, page, > > + ciphertext_page, > > + i_blocksize(inode), offs, > > + gfp_flags); > > + if (err) > > + return ERR_PTR(err); Apparently ubifs does encrypt data shorter than the filesystem block size, so this part is wrong. I suggest we split this into two functions, fscrypt_encrypt_block_inplace() and fscrypt_encrypt_blocks(), so that it's conceptually simpler what each function does. Currently this works completely differently depending on whether the filesystem set FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES in its fscrypt_operations, which is weird. I also noticed that using fscrypt_ctx for writes seems to be unnecessary. AFAICS, page_private(bounce_page) could point directly to the pagecache page. That would simplify things a lot, especially since then fscrypt_ctx could be removed entirely after you convert reads to use read_callbacks_ctx. IMO, these would be worthwhile cleanups for fscrypt by themselves, without waiting for the read_callbacks stuff to be finalized. Finalizing the read_callbacks stuff will probably require reaching a consensus about how they should work with future filesystem features like fsverity and compression. So to move things forward, I'm considering sending out a series with the above cleanups for fscrypt, plus the equivalent of your patches: "fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range" "fscrypt_zeroout_range: Encrypt all zeroed out blocks of a page" "Add decryption support for sub-pagesized blocks" (fs/crypto/ part only) Then hopefully we can get all that applied for 5.3 so that fs/crypto/ itself is ready for blocksize != PAGE_SIZE; and get your changes to ext4_bio_write_page(), __ext4_block_zero_page_range(), and ext4_block_write_begin() applied too, so that ext4 is partially ready for encryption with blocksize != PAGE_SIZE. Then only the read_callbacks stuff will remain, to get encryption support into fs/mpage.c and fs/buffer.c. Do you think that's a good plan? Thanks! - Eric ___ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2 10/13] fscrypt_encrypt_page: Loop across all blocks mapped by a page range
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:01:18AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > For subpage-sized blocks, this commit now encrypts all blocks mapped by > a page range. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > --- > fs/crypto/crypto.c | 37 + > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > index 4f0d832cae71..2d65b431563f 100644 > --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c > +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c > @@ -242,18 +242,26 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct inode > *inode, Need to update the function comment to clearly explain what this function actually does now. > { > struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx; > struct page *ciphertext_page = page; > + int i, page_nr_blks; > int err; > > BUG_ON(len % FS_CRYPTO_BLOCK_SIZE != 0); > Make a 'blocksize' variable so you don't have to keep calling i_blocksize(). Also, you need to check whether 'len' and 'offs' are filesystem-block-aligned, since the code now assumes it. const unsigned int blocksize = i_blocksize(inode); if (!IS_ALIGNED(len | offs, blocksize)) return -EINVAL; However, did you check whether that's always true for ubifs? It looks like it may expect to encrypt a prefix of a block, that is only padded to the next 16-byte boundary. > + page_nr_blks = len >> inode->i_blkbits; > + > if (inode->i_sb->s_cop->flags & FS_CFLG_OWN_PAGES) { > /* with inplace-encryption we just encrypt the page */ > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk_num, page, > - ciphertext_page, len, offs, > - gfp_flags); > - if (err) > - return ERR_PTR(err); > - > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, > + lblk_num, page, > + ciphertext_page, > + i_blocksize(inode), offs, > + gfp_flags); > + if (err) > + return ERR_PTR(err); > + ++lblk_num; > + offs += i_blocksize(inode); > + } > return ciphertext_page; > } > > @@ -269,12 +277,17 @@ struct page *fscrypt_encrypt_page(const struct inode > *inode, > goto errout; > > ctx->control_page = page; > - err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk_num, > - page, ciphertext_page, len, offs, > - gfp_flags); > - if (err) { > - ciphertext_page = ERR_PTR(err); > - goto errout; > + > + for (i = 0; i < page_nr_blks; i++) { > + err = fscrypt_do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk_num, > + page, ciphertext_page, > + i_blocksize(inode), offs, gfp_flags); As I mentioned elsewhere, renaming fscrypt_do_page_crypto() to fscrypt_crypt_block() would make more sense now. > + if (err) { > + ciphertext_page = ERR_PTR(err); > + goto errout; > + } > + ++lblk_num; > + offs += i_blocksize(inode); > } > SetPagePrivate(ciphertext_page); > set_page_private(ciphertext_page, (unsigned long)ctx); > -- > 2.19.1 > ___ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel