On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Allison Henderson
<achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 12:52 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-07-07, at 1:05 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Allison Henderson
>>> <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2011 02:33 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Allison Henderson
>>>>> <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -4485,6 +4485,14 @@ void ext4_free_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct
>>>>>> inode *inode,
>>>>>> ext4_debug("freeing block %llu\n", block);
>>>>>> trace_ext4_free_blocks(inode, block, count, flags);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (flags& EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_ZERO) {
>>>>>> + err = sb_issue_zeroout(inode->i_sb, block, count,
>>>>>> GFP_NOFS);
>>>>>
>>>>> But the delete of these blocks in not yet committed,
>>>>> so after reboot, you can end up with a non-deleted but zeroed file
>>>>> data.
>>>>> Is that acceptable? I should think not.
>>>>>
>>>>> One way around this is a 2-phase unlink/truncate.
>>>>> Phase 1: add to orphan list and register a callback on commit
>>>>> Phase 2: issue zeroout and free the blocks
>>>>>
>>>>> This won't work for punch hole, but then again, for punch hole
>>>>> it's probably OK to end up with zeroed data, but non-deleted blocks.
>>>>> Right?
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I had a quick question about the orphan list. I notice that
>>>> ext4_ext_truncate and also ext4_ext_punch_hole already have a call to
>>>> ext4_orphan_add that happens really early before any calls to free
>>>> blocks.
>>>> Does this address your earlier concerns, or is there another reason I
>>>> missed? Thx!
>>>
>>> It doesn't address the concerns of getting a non-deleted file with zeroed
>>> data
>>> after crash, because the existence of the inode on the orphan list after
>>> crash
>>> depends on the transaction that added it to the list being committed.
>>> And your patch zeroes the blocks before that transaction is committed.
>>>
>>> However, the orphan list gives you a very good framework to implement
>>> deferred delete (by a kernel thread) as Andreas suggested.
>>> Unlink should be simple, because freeing unlinked inode blocks it is
>>> anyway
>>> deferred till the inode refcount drops to zero.
>>
>> Right. The patch that I referenced moved all of the blocks from unlink
>> and truncate-to-zero from the current inode to a new temporary inode on
>> the
>> orphan list (simply copying the i_blocks field + i_block and i_size, IIRC,
>> and zeroing them on the original inode).
>>
>>> Truncate is more tricky, because of the truncate shrink/extend
>>> requirement
>>> (that all data is zeroes after extending the inode's size via truncate
>>> system call), so a shrinking-deferred truncate would have to mark all the
>>> to-be-deleted extents uninitialized.
>>
>> It would be possible to do this for partial truncate/punch as well, to
>> move whole blocks over to a new inode on the orphan list and zeroing only
>> the 1 or 2 partial blocks inline.
>>
>> It should even be possible to leverage the "block migrate" facility used
>> by defrag, so that we don't duplicate this code. That would mean just
>> allocating a temp "unlink" inode in the kernel and putting it on the
>> orphan
>> list (like an open-unlinked file), migrate the selected range of blocks,
>> and then zeroing the blocks in the background before unlinking the inode.
>>
>> I don't think that just marking the deleted extents as uninitialized is
>> enough, since it would still leave "private" data on disk that could be
>> read afterward. This would also only work for extent-mapped filesystems.
>>
>> There may need to be some work to enable the migrate code on block-mapped
>> files, if you want to allow secure-delete on those files, but that is good
>> IMHO since it also means that we could defrag block-mapped files.
>>
>> Cheers, Andreas
>>
>
> Ah, ok then. Yes, part of the requirements was to make secure delete work
> for partial truncates, punch hole, and also indexed files. So that will
> save me some time if I can get the migrate routines work. Thx for the
> pointers all!
>
I realized that there is a basic flaw in the concept of deferred-secure-delete.
>From a security point of view, after a crash during a secure-delete,
if the file is not there, all its data should have been wiped.
Orphan cleanup on the next mount may be done on a system that
doesn't respect secure delete.
So for real security, the unlink/truncate command cannot return before
all data is wiped.
The unlink/truncate metadata changes must not even be committed
before all data is wiped (or at least part of the data with partial truncate).
Amir.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
