All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported
@ 2022-05-19 20:44 Eric Biggers
  2022-05-19 20:56 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
  2022-05-22  2:31 ` Theodore Ts'o
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eric Biggers @ 2022-05-19 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-ext4, Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: linux-fscrypt

From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

Make the test_dummy_encryption mount option require that the encrypt
feature flag be already enabled on the filesystem, rather than
automatically enabling it.  Practically, this means that "-O encrypt"
will need to be included in MKFS_OPTIONS when running xfstests with the
test_dummy_encryption mount option.  (ext4/053 also needs an update.)

Moreover, as long as the preconditions for test_dummy_encryption are
being tightened anyway, take the opportunity to start rejecting it when
!CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION rather than ignoring it.

The motivation for requiring the encrypt feature flag is that:

- Having the filesystem auto-enable feature flags is problematic, as it
  bypasses the usual sanity checks.  The specific issue which came up
  recently is that in kernel versions where ext4 supports casefold but
  not encrypt+casefold (v5.1 through v5.10), the kernel will happily add
  the encrypt flag to a filesystem that has the casefold flag, making it
  unmountable -- but only for subsequent mounts, not the initial one.
  This confused the casefold support detection in xfstests, causing
  generic/556 to fail rather than be skipped.

- The xfstests-bld test runners (kvm-xfstests et al.) already use the
  required mkfs flag, so they will not be affected by this change.  Only
  users of test_dummy_encryption alone will be affected.  But, this
  option has always been for testing only, so it should be fine to
  require that the few users of this option update their test scripts.

- f2fs already requires it (for its equivalent feature flag).

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
---

v4: Fixed an unused variable warning when !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION, and
    removed DUMMY_ENCRYPTION_ENABLED() which is no longer used.

 fs/ext4/ext4.h  |  6 -----
 fs/ext4/super.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
index 797bc572d6fb3..e608c06980087 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
+++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
@@ -1442,12 +1442,6 @@ struct ext4_super_block {
 
 #ifdef __KERNEL__
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION
-#define DUMMY_ENCRYPTION_ENABLED(sbi) ((sbi)->s_dummy_enc_policy.policy != NULL)
-#else
-#define DUMMY_ENCRYPTION_ENABLED(sbi) (0)
-#endif
-
 /* Number of quota types we support */
 #define EXT4_MAXQUOTAS 3
 
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index ea8255a03305a..1ef85a3a2be9f 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -2430,11 +2430,12 @@ static int ext4_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
 		ctx->spec |= EXT4_SPEC_DUMMY_ENCRYPTION;
 		ctx->test_dummy_enc_arg = kmemdup_nul(param->string, param->size,
 						      GFP_KERNEL);
+		return 0;
 #else
 		ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_WARNING,
-			 "Test dummy encryption mount option ignored");
+			 "test_dummy_encryption option not supported");
+		return -EINVAL;
 #endif
-		return 0;
 	case Opt_dax:
 	case Opt_dax_type:
 #ifdef CONFIG_FS_DAX
@@ -2791,12 +2792,44 @@ static int ext4_check_quota_consistency(struct fs_context *fc,
 #endif
 }
 
+static int ext4_check_test_dummy_encryption(const struct fs_context *fc,
+					    struct super_block *sb)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION
+	const struct ext4_fs_context *ctx = fc->fs_private;
+	const struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
+
+	if (!(ctx->spec & EXT4_SPEC_DUMMY_ENCRYPTION))
+		return 0;
+
+	if (!ext4_has_feature_encrypt(sb)) {
+		ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_WARNING,
+			 "test_dummy_encryption requires encrypt feature");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+	/*
+	 * This mount option is just for testing, and it's not worthwhile to
+	 * implement the extra complexity (e.g. RCU protection) that would be
+	 * needed to allow it to be set or changed during remount.  We do allow
+	 * it to be specified during remount, but only if there is no change.
+	 */
+	if (fc->purpose == FS_CONTEXT_FOR_RECONFIGURE &&
+	    !sbi->s_dummy_enc_policy.policy) {
+		ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_WARNING,
+			 "Can't set test_dummy_encryption on remount");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+#endif /* CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION */
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int ext4_check_opt_consistency(struct fs_context *fc,
 				      struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	struct ext4_fs_context *ctx = fc->fs_private;
 	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = fc->s_fs_info;
 	int is_remount = fc->purpose == FS_CONTEXT_FOR_RECONFIGURE;
+	int err;
 
 	if ((ctx->opt_flags & MOPT_NO_EXT2) && IS_EXT2_SB(sb)) {
 		ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_ERR,
@@ -2826,20 +2859,9 @@ static int ext4_check_opt_consistency(struct fs_context *fc,
 				 "for blocksize < PAGE_SIZE");
 	}
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION
-	/*
-	 * This mount option is just for testing, and it's not worthwhile to
-	 * implement the extra complexity (e.g. RCU protection) that would be
-	 * needed to allow it to be set or changed during remount.  We do allow
-	 * it to be specified during remount, but only if there is no change.
-	 */
-	if ((ctx->spec & EXT4_SPEC_DUMMY_ENCRYPTION) &&
-	    is_remount && !sbi->s_dummy_enc_policy.policy) {
-		ext4_msg(NULL, KERN_WARNING,
-			 "Can't set test_dummy_encryption on remount");
-		return -1;
-	}
-#endif
+	err = ext4_check_test_dummy_encryption(fc, sb);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
 
 	if ((ctx->spec & EXT4_SPEC_DATAJ) && is_remount) {
 		if (!sbi->s_journal) {
@@ -5285,12 +5307,6 @@ static int __ext4_fill_super(struct fs_context *fc, struct super_block *sb)
 		goto failed_mount_wq;
 	}
 
-	if (DUMMY_ENCRYPTION_ENABLED(sbi) && !sb_rdonly(sb) &&
-	    !ext4_has_feature_encrypt(sb)) {
-		ext4_set_feature_encrypt(sb);
-		ext4_commit_super(sb);
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * Get the # of file system overhead blocks from the
 	 * superblock if present.
-- 
2.36.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported
  2022-05-19 20:44 [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported Eric Biggers
@ 2022-05-19 20:56 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
  2022-05-22  2:31 ` Theodore Ts'o
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi @ 2022-05-19 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eric Biggers; +Cc: linux-ext4, Theodore Ts'o, linux-fscrypt

Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> writes:

> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
>
> Make the test_dummy_encryption mount option require that the encrypt
> feature flag be already enabled on the filesystem, rather than
> automatically enabling it.  Practically, this means that "-O encrypt"
> will need to be included in MKFS_OPTIONS when running xfstests with the
> test_dummy_encryption mount option.  (ext4/053 also needs an update.)
>
> Moreover, as long as the preconditions for test_dummy_encryption are
> being tightened anyway, take the opportunity to start rejecting it when
> !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION rather than ignoring it.
>
> The motivation for requiring the encrypt feature flag is that:
>
> - Having the filesystem auto-enable feature flags is problematic, as it
>   bypasses the usual sanity checks.  The specific issue which came up
>   recently is that in kernel versions where ext4 supports casefold but
>   not encrypt+casefold (v5.1 through v5.10), the kernel will happily add
>   the encrypt flag to a filesystem that has the casefold flag, making it
>   unmountable -- but only for subsequent mounts, not the initial one.
>   This confused the casefold support detection in xfstests, causing
>   generic/556 to fail rather than be skipped.
>
> - The xfstests-bld test runners (kvm-xfstests et al.) already use the
>   required mkfs flag, so they will not be affected by this change.  Only
>   users of test_dummy_encryption alone will be affected.  But, this
>   option has always been for testing only, so it should be fine to
>   require that the few users of this option update their test scripts.
>
> - f2fs already requires it (for its equivalent feature flag).
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

Makes sense to me and code looks good.  Please add:

Reviewed-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported
  2022-05-19 20:44 [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported Eric Biggers
  2022-05-19 20:56 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
@ 2022-05-22  2:31 ` Theodore Ts'o
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2022-05-22  2:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-ext4, Eric Biggers; +Cc: Theodore Ts'o, linux-fscrypt

On Thu, 19 May 2022 13:44:37 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> 
> Make the test_dummy_encryption mount option require that the encrypt
> feature flag be already enabled on the filesystem, rather than
> automatically enabling it.  Practically, this means that "-O encrypt"
> will need to be included in MKFS_OPTIONS when running xfstests with the
> test_dummy_encryption mount option.  (ext4/053 also needs an update.)
> 
> [...]

I've replaced the older version of the commit with this one, thanks!

[1/1] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported
      commit: d177c151d74881536aa6b58f450c70fd5a7b6c1a

Best regards,
-- 
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-22  2:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-05-19 20:44 [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported Eric Biggers
2022-05-19 20:56 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-05-22  2:31 ` Theodore Ts'o

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.