From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/16] ceph: add encrypted fname handling to ceph_mdsc_build_path
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:36:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200916173603.GA4373@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bd9257732cfd98ee30ccc151125d21d6955d6f66.camel@kernel.org>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:30:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> It sounds like we'll probably need to stabilize some version of the
> nokey name so that we can allow the MDS to look them up. Would it be a
> problem for us to use the current version of the nokey name format for
> this, or would it be better to come up with some other distinct format
> for this?
>
You could use the current version, with the dirhash field changed from u32 to
__le32 so that it doesn't depend on CPU endianness. But you should also
consider using just base64(SHA256(filename)). The SHA256(filename) approach
wouldn't include a dirhash, and it would handle short filenames less
efficiently. However, it would be simpler. Would it be any easier for you?
I'm not sure which would be better from a fs/crypto/ perspective. For *now*, it
would be easier if you just used the current 'struct fscrypt_nokey_name'.
However, anything you use would be set in stone, whereas as-is the format can be
changed at any time. In fact, we changed it recently; see commit edc440e3d27f.
If we happen to change the nokey name in the future for local filesystems (say,
to use BLAKE2 instead of SHA256, or to support longer dirhashes), then it would
be easier if the stable format were just SHA256(filename).
It's not a huge deal though. So if e.g. you like that the current format avoids
the cryptographic hash for the vast majority of filenames, and if you're fine
with the slightly increased complexity, you can just use it.
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-16 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-14 19:16 [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] ceph+fscrypt: context, filename and symlink support Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/16] vfs: export new_inode_pseudo Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 23:33 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-23 3:41 ` Al Viro
2020-09-23 11:19 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/16] fscrypt: export fscrypt_base64_encode and fscrypt_base64_decode Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 23:44 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/16] fscrypt: export fscrypt_d_revalidate Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 0:04 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/16] fscrypt: add fscrypt_context_for_new_inode Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 0:15 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/16] fscrypt: make fscrypt_fname_disk_to_usr return whether result is nokey name Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 0:23 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/16] ceph: add fscrypt ioctls Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 0:45 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-15 12:08 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/16] ceph: crypto context handling for ceph Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 1:00 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-14 19:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/16] ceph: implement -o test_dummy_encryption mount option Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 1:23 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-16 12:49 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/16] ceph: preallocate inode for ops that may create one Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 1:30 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-16 12:41 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/16] ceph: add routine to create context prior to RPC Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 1:37 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-16 12:18 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/16] ceph: make ceph_msdc_build_path use ref-walk Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/16] ceph: add encrypted fname handling to ceph_mdsc_build_path Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 1:41 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-16 12:30 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-16 17:36 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2020-09-16 18:04 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-16 18:42 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 13/16] ceph: make d_revalidate call fscrypt revalidator for encrypted dentries Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 14/16] ceph: add support to readdir for encrypted filenames Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 1:57 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-15 13:27 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 20:40 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-16 12:16 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 15/16] ceph: add fscrypt support to ceph_fill_trace Jeff Layton
2020-09-14 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v3 16/16] ceph: create symlinks with encrypted and base64-encoded targets Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 2:07 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-15 14:05 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 20:49 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-16 12:15 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-15 2:13 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] ceph+fscrypt: context, filename and symlink support Eric Biggers
2020-09-15 13:38 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200916173603.GA4373@sol.localdomain \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xiubli@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.