From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> As I noted on the mailing list, it's easier than I originally thought to create intentional collisions in the digested names. Unfortunately it's not too easy to solve this, so for now just fix the comment to not lie. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/fscrypt_supp.h | 22 +++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/fscrypt_supp.h b/include/linux/fscrypt_supp.h index e12c224a0d1e..cd4e82c17304 100644 --- a/include/linux/fscrypt_supp.h +++ b/include/linux/fscrypt_supp.h @@ -81,20 +81,16 @@ extern int fscrypt_fname_usr_to_disk(struct inode *, const struct qstr *, * followed by the second-to-last ciphertext block of the filename. Due to the * use of the CBC-CTS encryption mode, the second-to-last ciphertext block * depends on the full plaintext. (Note that ciphertext stealing causes the - * last two blocks to appear "flipped".) This makes collisions very unlikely: - * just a 1 in 2^128 chance for two filenames to collide even if they share the - * same filesystem-specific hashes. + * last two blocks to appear "flipped".) This makes accidental collisions very + * unlikely: just a 1 in 2^128 chance for two filenames to collide even if they + * share the same filesystem-specific hashes. * - * This scheme isn't strictly immune to intentional collisions because it's - * basically like a CBC-MAC, which isn't secure on variable-length inputs. - * However, generating a CBC-MAC collision requires the ability to choose - * arbitrary ciphertext, which won't normally be possible with filename - * encryption since it would require write access to the raw disk. - * - * Taking a real cryptographic hash like SHA-256 over the full ciphertext would - * be better in theory but would be less efficient and more complicated to - * implement, especially since the filesystem would need to calculate it for - * each directory entry examined during a search. + * However, this scheme isn't immune to intentional collisions, which can be + * created by anyone able to create arbitrary plaintext filenames and view them + * without the key. Making the "digest" be a real cryptographic hash like + * SHA-256 over the full ciphertext would prevent this, although it would be + * less efficient and harder to implement, especially since the filesystem would + * need to calculate it for each directory entry examined during a search. */ struct fscrypt_digested_name { u32 hash; -- 2.13.0.rc0.306.g87b477812d-goog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fscrypt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |