On 26/10/2020 19:39, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: >> On 26/10/2020 18:52, Eric Biggers wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 03:04:46PM +0200, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: >>>> Replace the explicit EBOIV handling in the dm-crypt driver with calls >>>> into the crypto API, which now possesses the capability to perform >>>> this processing within the crypto subsystem. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/md/Kconfig | 1 + >>>> drivers/md/dm-crypt.c | 61 ++++++++++++++----------------------------- >>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/Kconfig b/drivers/md/Kconfig >>>> index 30ba3573626c..ca6e56a72281 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/md/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/drivers/md/Kconfig >>>> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ config DM_CRYPT >>>> select CRYPTO >>>> select CRYPTO_CBC >>>> select CRYPTO_ESSIV >>>> + select CRYPTO_EBOIV >>>> help >>>> This device-mapper target allows you to create a device that >>>> transparently encrypts the data on it. You'll need to activate >>> >>> Can CRYPTO_EBOIV please not be selected by default? If someone really wants >>> Bitlocker compatibility support, they can select this option themselves. >> >> Please no! Until this move of IV to crypto API, we can rely on >> support in dm-crypt (if it is not supported, it is just a very old kernel). >> (Actually, this was the first thing I checked in this patchset - if it is >> unconditionally enabled for compatibility once dmcrypt is selected.) >> >> People already use removable devices with BitLocker. >> It was the whole point that it works out-of-the-box without enabling anything. >> >> If you insist on this to be optional, please better keep this IV inside dmcrypt. >> (EBOIV has no other use than for disk encryption anyway.) >> >> Or maybe another option would be to introduce option under dm-crypt Kconfig that >> defaults to enabled (like support for foreign/legacy disk encryption schemes) and that >> selects these IVs/modes. >> But requiring some random switch in crypto API will only confuse users. > > CONFIG_DM_CRYPT can either select every weird combination of algorithms anyone > can ever be using, or it can select some defaults and require any other needed > algorithms to be explicitly selected. > > In reality, dm-crypt has never even selected any particular block ciphers, even > AES. Nor has it ever selected XTS. So it's actually always made users (or > kernel distributors) explicitly select algorithms. Why the Bitlocker support > suddenly different? > > I'd think a lot of dm-crypt users don't want to bloat their kernels with random > legacy algorithms. Yes, but IV is in reality not a cryptographic algorithm, it is kind-of a configuration "option" of sector encryption mode here. We had all of disk-IV inside dmcrypt before - but once it is partially moved into crypto API (ESSIV, EBOIV for now), it becomes much more complicated for user to select what he needs. I think we have no way to check that IV is available from userspace - it will report the same error as if block cipher is not available, not helping user much with the error. But then I also think we should add abstract dm-crypt options here (Legacy TrueCrypt modes, Bitlocker modes) that will select these crypto API configuration switches. Otherwise it will be only a complicated matrix of crypto API options... Milan -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
