On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:22:20AM -0500, Glenn Washburn wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 12:59:47 +0200
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've sifted through the mailing list contents of the last few months
> > to cherry-pick cryptodisk bugfixes which I think should be included
> > in the v2.06 release. I've found the following 9 patches from Glenn
> > and me which should probably be included, separated them out from
> > their respective patch series and made them play nice with each other.
> > 
> > This patch series shouldn't be applied as-is, but my intention is
> > instead to bundle all fixes which apply to v2.06 in a single thread to
> > make discussion easier and help us keep track of what needs to be
> > done. I've got some comments which I've sent to the original threads
> > already and added notes below.
> > 
> > - luks2: grub_cryptodisk_t->total_length is the max number of device
> >   native sectors
> > 
> >     I'm not sure if this fix is correct, mostly because I think that
> >     `grub_disk_get_size` is buggy already: it returns sectors for
> >     partitions and the total size for disks. So I do think we need
> >     another patch to fix that function, too.
> 
> Its not clear to me what "total size" means here.  However,
> `grub_disk_get_size` returns sectors for non-partition disks as well.
> Note, that it returns the total number of grub native sector-sized
> sectors (ie 512 byte sectors).  I do think that the _size suffix is
> misleading and should be named `grub_disk_get_sectors` or something
> similar.

Oh, yeah. I've misunderstood the translation from disk sector size to
GRUB-native sector size.

I heavily agree with you that there should be some code cleanup after
v2.06 which does s/grub_disk_get_size/grub_disk_get_sectors/ for this
and other related code. It's just too easy to shoot yourself in the foot
here if you're not knowing a 100% what you're doing.

> Is there something I can do to clear up the uncertainty around this
> fix?  I suspect part of the confusion lies in the fact that the
> total_length field is actually in cryptodisk sector-sized sectors. We
> know this because in `grub_cryptodisk_open` in cryptodisk.c the
> total_length field is being set unmodified to the total_sectors field of
> a `grub_disk_t` and `grub_disk_get_size` assume that total_sectors
> needs to be converted from disk native to grub native sector-sized
> sectors.

No, I've read it again and will add my Reviewed-by for this patch.

> > - cryptodisk: Properly handle non-512 byte sized sectors
> > 
> >     Should we pick this for v2.06? It definitely fixes things, but
> > also feels a bit like feature-enablement.
> 
> I see you fixed the bug in my patch where IV_PLAIN IVs were not being
> calculated, thanks.  Considering grubs slow release cycle, I think its
> better to include this or at least make a note that non-512-byte
> sectors are currently not supported and have cryptomount fail with an
> appropriate error message if it detects trying to open a LUKS2 device
> with sector size not equal to 512.  As it is, I think LUKS2 support
> will have people thinking that non-default sector sizes are supported.

I should've added a note in here about my fixup. And let's do
include it then.

> > I've added my Reviewed-by to those patches which look obviously
> > correct to me.
> > 
> > Glenn, please let me know if this somehow interferes with your work or
> > if you'd like to handle upstreaming of those fixes yourself.
> 
> I would like to get these patches in a quickly as possible and I
> suspect this patchset is probably that route, so I'm pleased to have
> these patches in here.  
> 
> As a reminder, my CRYPTOMOUNT-TESTS patchset can test the full patch
> set (not individual patches because non-512-byte sector support
> requires multiple patches in this patchset).

I'll have a look at that patchset soonish.

Patrick