On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 03:48:30PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 03:27:48PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 02:32:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:35 AM Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Patches 1-3 add the VFS support, UAPI, and documentation. Patches 4-7
> > > > are Btrfs prep patches. Patch 8 adds Btrfs encoded read support and
> > > > patch 9 adds Btrfs encoded write support.
> > >
> > > I don't love the RWF_ENCODED flag, but if that's the way people think
> > > this should be done, as a model this looks reasonable to me.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the deal with the encryption metadata is. I realize
> > > there is currently only one encryption type ("none") in this series,
> > > but it's not clear how any other encryption type would actually ever
> > > be described. It's not like you can pass in the key (well, I guess
> > > passing in the key would be fine, but passing it back out certainly
> > > would not be). A key ID from a keyring?
> > >
> > > So there's presumably some future plan for it, but it would be good to
> > > verify that that plan makes sense..
> >
> > What I'm imagining for fscrypt is:
> >
> > 1. Add ENCODED_IOV_ENCRYPTION_* types for fscrypt. Consumers at least
> > need to be able to distinguish between encryption policy versions,
> > DIRECT_KEY policies, and IV_INO_LBLK_{64,32} policies, and maybe
> > other details.
> > 2. Use RWF_ENCODED only for the data itself.
> > 3. Add new fscrypt ioctls to get and set the encryption key.
> >
> > The interesting part is (3). If I'm reading the fscrypt documentation
> > correctly, in the default mode, each file is encrypted with a per-file
> > key that is a function of the master key for the directory tree and a
> > per-file nonce.
> >
> > Userspace manages the master key, we have a FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_NONCE
> > ioctl, and the key derivation function is documented. So, userspace
> > already has all of the pieces it needs to get the encryption key, and
> > all of the information it needs to decrypt the data it gets from
> > RWF_ENCODED if it so desires.
> >
> > On the set/write side, the user can set the same master key and policy
> > with FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY, and we'd need something like an
> > FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_NONCE ioctl (possibly with a requirement that it
> > be set when the file is empty). I think that's it.
> >
> > The details will vary for the other fscrypt policies, but that's the
> > gist of it. I added the fscrypt maintainers to correct me if I missed
> > something.
> >
>
> Well, assuming we're talking about regular files only (so file contents
> encryption, not filenames encryption),
Yes, I was thinking of regular files. File operations using encrypted
names sounds... interesting, but I think out of scope for this.
> with fscrypt the information needed to
> understand a file's encrypted data is the following:
>
> 1. The encryption key
>
> 2. The filesystem's block size
>
> 3. The encryption context:
>
> struct fscrypt_context_v2 {
> u8 version; /* FSCRYPT_CONTEXT_V2 */
> u8 contents_encryption_mode;
> u8 filenames_encryption_mode;
> u8 flags;
> u8 __reserved[4];
> u8 master_key_identifier[FSCRYPT_KEY_IDENTIFIER_SIZE];
> u8 nonce[FSCRYPT_FILE_NONCE_SIZE];
> };
>
> (Or alternatively struct fscrypt_policy_v2 + the nonce field separately;
> that results in the same fields as struct fscrypt_context_v2.)
>
> This is definitely more complex than the compression cases like "the data is a
> zlib stream". So the question is, how much of this metadata (if any) should
> actually be passed around during RWF_ENCODED pread/pwrite operations, and how
> much should be out-of-band.
>
> I feel like this should be mostly out-of-band (e.g. via the existing ioctls
> FS_IOC_{GET,SET}_ENCRYPTION_POLICY), especially given that compression and
> encryption could be combined which would make describing the on-disk data even
> more difficult.
>
> But I'm not sure what you intended.
Okay, I think we're in agreement: RWF_ENCODED for the data and separate
ioctls for the encryption context. Since the fscrypt policy struct
includes all of the relevant information, RWF_ENCODED can probably just
have a single ENCODED_IOV_ENCRYPTION_FSCRYPT encryption type.
RWF_ENCODED can express data which is both compressed and encrypted, so
that should be fine as well.
The only other missing piece that I see (other than filesystem support)
is an FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_NONCE ioctl. Would such an interface be
reasonable?
