On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:32:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 03:06:52PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > +Key hierarchy > > > +============= > > > + > > > +Master Keys > > > +----------- > > > + > > > +Userspace should generate master keys either using a cryptographically > > > +secure random number generator, e.g. by reading from ``/dev/urandom`` > > > +or calling getrandom(), or by using a KDF (Key Derivation Function). > > > +Note that whenever a KDF is used to "stretch" a lower-entropy secret > > > +such as a passphrase, it is critical that a KDF designed for this > > > +purpose be used, such as scrypt, PBKDF2, or Argon2. > > > > One minor suggestion - when generating a master key for a filesystem, > > I'd think it is preferable to use /dev/random instead of /dev/urandom > > to ensure there is enough entropy. > > I would just say "use getrandom" and be done with it. More > importantly, we probably just want to direct users to use either > https://github.com/google/fscrypt or Android key management system at > the beginning of the file. > > If the readers of this documentation file need to be told how to get > good random number generators, they're very likely to make any number > of other basic security mistakes. If people don't think the fscrypt > user program isn't user-friendly or flexible enough to encompass their > use case, it's probably better to encourage them to submit > enhancements to an existing open source key management system such as > google/fscrypt. If we minimize the number of userspace > implementations, the easier it will be to make sure they are > appropriately audited for security issues... > Yes, the intent wasn't really to start a debate about /dev/random vs. /dev/urandom vs. getrandom(). I'll probably just remove the text "e.g. by reading from /dev/urandom or calling getrandom()". I agree that we should recommend the 'fscrypt' userspace tool more strongly as well. I did mention it at the beginning of the document, but I didn't explicitly say something like "use this instead of writing your own tool". Either way, the kernel API should still be fully documented. And part of that is documenting that the master key needs to be a good pseudorandom key. Otherwise I could imagine someone mistakenly thinking that the filesystem does key stretching for them, for example. (Yes, that person probably wouldn't read the documentation and would screw up anyway, but we might as well try.) Eric
