On 8/18/22 18:07, Eric Biggers wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:54:56AM -0400, Sweet Tea Dorminy wrote:On 8/17/22 10:49, Sweet Tea Dorminy wrote:Encryption for btrfs must be extent-based, rather than fscrypt's inode-based IV generation policies. In particular, btrfs can have multiple inodes referencing a single block of data, and moves logical data blocks to different physical locations on disk; these two features mean inode or physical-location-based IV generation policies will not work for btrfs. Instead, btrfs can store an IV per extent, generated by fscrypt and iterated per block within the extent, and provide that IV to fscrypt for encryption/decryption. Plumbing filesystem internals into fscrypt for IV generation would be ungainly and fragile. Thus, this change adds a new policy, IV_FROM_FS, and a new operation function pointer, get_fs_derived_iv. btrfs will require this policy to be used, and implements get_fs_derived_iv by getting the IV stored with the relevant file extent and iterating the IV to the appropriate block number. Thus, each individual block has its own IV, but all blocks within a file extent have iterated IVs according to their block number, similarly to the IV_INO_LBLK* policy iterating IVs for a given inode by lblk number. The IV buffer passed to get_fs_derived_iv() is pre-populated with the inode contexts' nonce, as not all data to be encrypted is associated with a file extent: for btrfs, this is used for filename encryption. Filesystems implementing this policy are expected to be incompatible with existing IV generation policies, so if the function pointer is set, only dummy or IV_FROM_FS policies are permitted. If there is a filesystem which allows other policies as well as IV_FROM_FS, it may be better to expose the policy to filesystems, so they can determine whether any given policy is compatible with their operation. Signed-off-by: Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> ---I realized after sending that this doesn't have Documentation/ updates for the new policy, still; apologies, and it remains on my queue.It looks like you also didn't address my feedback about IV_FROM_FS at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fscrypt/YuBAiRg9K8IrlCqV@xxxxxxxxx ?
Apologies; I must not have grasped what you were requesting fully. Should I change the name from IV_FROM_FS to IV_PER_EXTENT?
|