From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6C7C352A4 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D309120714 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:47:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="EDGVRS51"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="ae8TFcfo"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="16O0AgpG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D309120714 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ks5-000690-AQ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:47:37 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ks4-00068n-7S for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:47:36 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=nKPdE+VUvz4/HxoG8Sm9EQ9tckCdm4ogmxzx9ZYKGHs=; b=EDGVRS51pbUMZdUUhHgUbhgzjX qCGMR4Tf0XsGEF5tJCtF3866gbdrpeirwQtRPRGyJVa6P1DsLD+tbIfmb/EjK0pIWB3IxWPGUapXK RsZwC3SCWRnKA1g2ertJklVCqNCryGgUHsKOINxiCxXJLmjVOBuwPlLL5l/ZhorrY3kM=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=nKPdE+VUvz4/HxoG8Sm9EQ9tckCdm4ogmxzx9ZYKGHs=; b=ae8TFcfoWcWitbOqTbQzjEGiO/ jQqJ5fXjR0cZxTZNsZj+w8SVByL1aewlw81EoqpOf/o010IB428KRu7wyp8ut0VW5ioZXha0DEwks sZ3OsNco+oZOZNfHORfc0hV2/JKtXKWpbCS/QhtjArXx7kzq98YXdDUC+qZ3RD+PdHgk=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1j1ks1-009HO4-D6 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:47:36 +0000 Received: from sol.localdomain (c-107-3-166-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [107.3.166.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D15620714; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:47:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1581486442; bh=vfQCzX8Gzst/DyzbbP8Yb9hEeqTup17d6ibCA2atEQk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=16O0AgpGnIblG8wXcW2EbHRzkj93++0mtvCGjFsyUCV76OVBn3s08Rm0Tzv10tDKX lVogvBzynO1bch/RJ/BUyPtnWFQPHyHktHkoCQZmBDMm5mY+WEzsP8LNaRpna7Nlxp fGy1pIz8XmPZ5U7MkLYBItDm8Mu67V3uwnIqWsJk= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:47:20 -0800 From: Eric Biggers To: Daniel Rosenberg Message-ID: <20200212054720.GH870@sol.localdomain> References: <20200208013552.241832-1-drosen@google.com> <20200208013552.241832-7-drosen@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200208013552.241832-7-drosen@google.com> X-Headers-End: 1j1ks1-009HO4-D6 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v7 6/8] f2fs: Handle casefolding with Encryption X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kernel-team@android.com, Theodore Ts'o , Jonathan Corbet , Richard Weinberger , Andreas Dilger , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 05:35:50PM -0800, Daniel Rosenberg wrote: > @@ -173,24 +193,24 @@ static inline bool f2fs_match_name(struct f2fs_dentry_ptr *d, > { > #ifdef CONFIG_UNICODE > struct inode *parent = d->inode; > - struct super_block *sb = parent->i_sb; > - struct qstr entry; > + unsigned char *name; > + int len; > #endif > > if (de->hash_code != namehash) > return false; > > #ifdef CONFIG_UNICODE > - entry.name = d->filename[bit_pos]; > - entry.len = de->name_len; > + name = d->filename[bit_pos]; > + len = de->name_len; This is missing le16_to_cpu(). > int f2fs_add_regular_entry(struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *new_name, > const struct qstr *orig_name, > + f2fs_hash_t dentry_hash, > struct inode *inode, nid_t ino, umode_t mode) > { > unsigned int bit_pos; > unsigned int level; > unsigned int current_depth; > unsigned long bidx, block; > - f2fs_hash_t dentry_hash; > unsigned int nbucket, nblock; > struct page *dentry_page = NULL; > struct f2fs_dentry_block *dentry_blk = NULL; > @@ -632,7 +652,6 @@ int f2fs_add_regular_entry(struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *new_name, > > level = 0; > slots = GET_DENTRY_SLOTS(new_name->len); > - dentry_hash = f2fs_dentry_hash(dir, new_name, NULL); Why was the call to f2fs_dentry_hash() moved to the caller, but for f2fs_add_inline_entry() a different approach was taken? > @@ -718,17 +737,19 @@ int f2fs_add_dentry(struct inode *dir, struct fscrypt_name *fname, > struct inode *inode, nid_t ino, umode_t mode) > { > struct qstr new_name; > + f2fs_hash_t dentry_hash; > int err = -EAGAIN; > > new_name.name = fname_name(fname); > new_name.len = fname_len(fname); > > if (f2fs_has_inline_dentry(dir)) > - err = f2fs_add_inline_entry(dir, &new_name, fname->usr_fname, > + err = f2fs_add_inline_entry(dir, &new_name, fname, > inode, ino, mode); I'm really confused. Why are you passing around both new_name and fname? We already have new_name == fname.disk_name. So isn't just the 'struct fscrypt_name' sufficient? > +static f2fs_hash_t __f2fs_dentry_hash(const struct inode *dir, > + const struct qstr *name_info, > + const struct fscrypt_name *fname) > { > __u32 hash; > f2fs_hash_t f2fs_hash; > @@ -85,6 +86,11 @@ static f2fs_hash_t __f2fs_dentry_hash(const struct qstr *name_info, > if (is_dot_dotdot(name_info)) > return 0; > > + if (IS_CASEFOLDED(dir) && IS_ENCRYPTED(dir)) { > + f2fs_hash = fscrypt_fname_siphash(dir, name_info); > + return f2fs_hash; > + } This is missing cpu_to_le32(). Also, above we have: /* encrypted bigname case */ if (fname && !fname->disk_name.name) return cpu_to_le32(fname->hash); That won't work with encrypted+casefolded directories without the key, because now sometimes the hash from the no-key name is needed even when the disk_name is available. This will cause a crash in fscrypt_fname_siphash() being called without the key. I think you want: if (fname && fname->is_ciphertext_name) return cpu_to_le32(fname->hash); Can you please write xfstests for encrypt+casefold? - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel