Eric, Am 19.04.2017 um 19:09 schrieb Eric Biggers: > Hi Richard, > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> >>> Tested only on ext4. >> >> I hope you classify this patch as RFC then. >> We'll have problems when you just develop and test for ext4. :-) >> > > It's a little difficult for people to test stuff on UBIFS without a turn-key > solution like kvm-xfstests where they can just run something like > 'kvm-xfstests -c ext4,f2fs,ubifs -g encrypt'. > > I did post patches to add UBIFS support to xfstests and kvm-xfstests a few > months ago; maybe you're interested in taking them over and working to get them > merged? I assigned this talk already to David. He can tell what the status is. >>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/namei.c b/fs/ext4/namei.c >>> index c4a389a6027b..14b2a2335a32 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ext4/namei.c >>> +++ b/fs/ext4/namei.c >>> @@ -1257,8 +1257,8 @@ static inline int ext4_match(struct ext4_filename *fname, >>> int ret; >>> if (de->name_len < 16) >>> return 0; >>> - ret = memcmp(de->name + de->name_len - 16, >>> - fname->crypto_buf.name + 8, 16); >>> + ret = memcmp(de->name + de->name_len - 32, >>> + fname->crypto_buf.name + 8, 32); >>> return (ret == 0) ? 1 : 0; >>> } >>> name = fname->crypto_buf.name; >> >> Can the code still be able to read filenames which have been encrypted >> using the "old" scheme? >> > > The patch only changes the presentation of long encrypted filenames when > accessed without the key. It doesn't change how filenames are encrypted. Thanks for pointing this out. Thanks, //richard
