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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 CA4EAC433DF for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:43:16 +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 900F2206BE; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:43:16 +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="UswYFb0y"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="R+fS1dXw"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="xYKqzs5Q" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 900F2206BE 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-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAIN8-0004wB-Rv; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:43:14 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAIN7-0004w2-C7 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:43:13 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Content-Type :References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To: 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=TkELksT1zV8nP6U8GFaspPXL1zhujHP4cWgZJmaY9ws=; b=UswYFb0yoy3fzTKQ9qszn9WRUE /MHner7YY2DwkRKMQKMv9zMNXpEO16/v4ctuIoAYaJ+MkycGcjC34bqY5NfTJdONq7KSUfckXGAxU RRoyE8UqVU7rWGbzabua53YcYKniizHzXqBzKsx+YHySQs99FlYxVf5ldmb91xAOOTdM=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Content-Type:References: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To: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=TkELksT1zV8nP6U8GFaspPXL1zhujHP4cWgZJmaY9ws=; b=R+fS1dXwEZfxYTwZj3f8BLOgmZ 99yAHUmVXA2bteIUQZPe2LcFoUmFdWQrGVvTBJszeIh0/WG8gfObwb9NEEfswmOW8gfifogXueonn /eKOHskgoeqcAPBATDxrPjY5RrB60BodqhBLFJQsbBFlkPGIGJEsxxH+NIdkKMWKCQgY=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1kAIN5-005XhR-AH for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:43:13 +0000 Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (68-20-15-154.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net [68.20.15.154]) (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 6FAE2206BE; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:43:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598298181; bh=VP9TI9b+TMTDGH5jknxTSQWn2OukpwVeWj0+r1HqH9k=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xYKqzs5QWDMbOcSpjdJ5hplae+9Z0vbrgF8oQVls4VZxEvXDtLz1rDHee1VCMj0yy wWp+DdCWfkMxn4HxEREPzXoFf7y/7ki4WDeYYOZ+fH/bbI13V8Ynr463JJJJi4O0C2 5hV76sqDY0yat2OsJtZTF1PRuaBLl2cBX2WSMyxg= Message-ID: From: Jeff Layton To: Eric Biggers Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:42:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200824190221.GC1650861@gmail.com> References: <20200824061712.195654-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20200824061712.195654-2-ebiggers@kernel.org> <0cf5638796e7cddacc38dcd1e967368b99f0069a.camel@kernel.org> <20200824182114.GB1650861@gmail.com> <06a7d9562b84354eb72bd67c9d4b7262dac53457.camel@kernel.org> <20200824190221.GC1650861@gmail.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-1.fc32) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Headers-End: 1kAIN5-005XhR-AH Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/8] fscrypt: add fscrypt_prepare_new_inode() and fscrypt_set_context() 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: linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 12:02 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:47:07PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 11:21 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:48:48PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > +void fscrypt_hash_inode_number(struct fscrypt_info *ci, > > > > > + const struct fscrypt_master_key *mk) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + WARN_ON(ci->ci_inode->i_ino == 0); > > > > > + WARN_ON(!mk->mk_ino_hash_key_initialized); > > > > > + > > > > > + ci->ci_hashed_ino = (u32)siphash_1u64(ci->ci_inode->i_ino, > > > > > + &mk->mk_ino_hash_key); > > > > > > > > i_ino is an unsigned long. Will this produce a consistent results on > > > > arches with 32 and 64 bit long values? I think it'd be nice to ensure > > > > that we can access an encrypted directory created on a 32-bit host from > > > > (e.g.) a 64-bit host. > > > > > > The result is the same regardless of word size and endianness. > > > siphash_1u64(v, k) is equivalent to: > > > > > > __le64 x = cpu_to_le64(v); > > > siphash(&x, 8, k); > > > > > > > In the case where you have an (on-storage) inode number that is larger > > than 2^32, x will almost certainly be different on a 32 vs. 64-bit > > wordsize. > > > > On the box with the 32-bit wordsize, you'll end up promoting i_ino to a > > 64-bit word and the upper 32 bits will be zeroed out. So it seems like > > this means that if you're using inline hardware you're going to end up > > with a result that won't work correctly across different wordsizes. > > That's only possible if the VFS is truncating the inode number, which would also > break userspace in lots of ways like making applications think that files are > hard-linked together when they aren't. Also, IV_INO_LBLK_64 would break. > > The correct fix for that would be to make inode::i_ino 64-bit. > ...or just ask the filesystem for the 64-bit inode number via ->getattr or a new op. You could also just truncate it down to 32 bits or xor the top and bottom bits together first, etc... > Note that ext4 and f2fs (currently the only filesystems that support the > IV_INO_LBLK_* flags) only support 32-bit inode numbers. > Ahh, ok. That explains why it's not been an issue so far. Still, if you're reworking this code anyway, you might want to consider avoiding i_ino here. -- Jeff Layton _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel