On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:33:12AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Eric, > > Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019, 06:49:39 CET schrieb Eric Biggers: > > Hi Richard, > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:55 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > +#define FSCRYPT_FS_KEYRING_DESCRIPTION_SIZE \ > > > > + (CONST_STRLEN("fscrypt-") + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct super_block, s_id)) > > > > + > > > > +#define FSCRYPT_MK_DESCRIPTION_SIZE (2 * FSCRYPT_KEY_DESCRIPTOR_SIZE + 1) > > > > + > > > > +static void format_fs_keyring_description( > > > > + char description[FSCRYPT_FS_KEYRING_DESCRIPTION_SIZE], > > > > + const struct super_block *sb) > > > > +{ > > > > + sprintf(description, "fscrypt-%s", sb->s_id); > > > > +} > > > > > > I fear ->s_id is not the right thing. > > > For filesystems such as ext4 ->s_id is the name of the backing block device, > > > so it is per filesysem instance unique. > > > But this is not guaranteed. For UBIFS ->s_id is just "ubifs", always. > > > So the names will clash. > > > > > > > What name do you suggest using for UBIFS filesystems? The keyring name could be > > set by the filesystem via a fscrypt_operations callback if needed. > > IMHO the BDI name should be used. > > > Note that the keyring name isn't particularly important, since the ioctls will > > work regardless. But we might as well choose something logical, since the > > keyring name will still show up in /proc/keys. > > I'm not done with reviewing your patches, but will it be possible to use keyctl? > For the a unique name is helpful. :) > Not for adding keys, removing keys, or getting a key's status -- those are what the ioctls are for. See e.g. the discussion in patch 7 ("fscrypt: add FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl") for why the keyrings syscalls are a poor fit for fscrypt. - Eric ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/