Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/20] fscrypt: add FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl
flat view
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Date: 2019-02-11 23:31:34
Also in:
keyrings, linux-crypto, linux-ext4, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fscrypt, linux-fsdevel
Hi Dave, On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:12:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:27:29AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:quoted
From: Eric Biggers <redacted> Add a new fscrypt ioctl, FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY. This ioctl removes an encryption key that was added by FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY. It wipes the secret key itself, then "locks" the encrypted files and directories that had been unlocked using that key -- implemented by evicting the relevant dentries and inodes from the VFS caches. The problem this solves is that many fscrypt users want the ability to remove encryption keys, causing the corresponding encrypted directories to appear "locked" (presented in ciphertext form) again. Moreover, users want removing an encryption key to *really* remove it, in the sense that the removed keys cannot be recovered even if kernel memory is compromised, e.g. by the exploit of a kernel security vulnerability or by a physical attack. This is desirable after a user logs out of the system, for example. In many cases users even already assume this to be the case and are surprised to hear when it's not. It is not sufficient to simply unlink the master key from the keyring (or to revoke or invalidate it), since the actual encryption transform objects are still pinned in memory by their inodes. Therefore, to really remove a key we must also evict the relevant inodes. Currently one workaround is to run 'sync && echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'. But, that evicts all unused inodes in the system rather than just the inodes associated with the key being removed, causing severe performance problems. Moreover, it requires root privileges, so regular users can't "lock" their encrypted files. Another workaround, used in Chromium OS kernels, is to add a new VFS-level ioctl FS_IOC_DROP_CACHE which is a more restricted version of drop_caches that operates on a single super_block. It does: shrink_dcache_sb(sb); invalidate_inodes(sb, false); But it's still a hack. Yet, the major users of filesystem encryption want this feature badly enough that they are actually using these hacks. To properly solve the problem, start maintaining a list of the inodes which have been "unlocked" using each master key. Originally this wasn't possible because the kernel didn't keep track of in-use master keys at all. But, with the ->s_master_keys keyring it is now possible. Then, add an ioctl FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY. It finds the specified master key in ->s_master_keys, then wipes the secret key itself, which prevents any additional inodes from being unlocked with the key. Then, it syncs the filesystem and evicts the inodes in the key's list. The normal inode eviction code will free and wipe the per-file keys (in ->i_crypt_info). Note that freeing ->i_crypt_info without evicting the inodes was also considered, but would have been racy.The solution is still so gross. Exporting all the inode cache internal functions so you can invalidate an external list of inodes is, IMO, not an appropriate solution for anything. Indeed, this is exactly what ->drop_inode() is for. Take this function:quoted
+static void evict_dentries_for_decrypted_inodes(struct fscrypt_master_key *mk) +{ + struct fscrypt_info *ci; + struct inode *inode; + struct inode *toput_inode = NULL; + + spin_lock(&mk->mk_decrypted_inodes_lock); + + list_for_each_entry(ci, &mk->mk_decrypted_inodes, ci_master_key_link) { + inode = ci->ci_inode; + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW)) { + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); + continue; + } + __iget(inode); + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); + spin_unlock(&mk->mk_decrypted_inodes_lock); + + shrink_dcache_inode(inode); + iput(toput_inode); + toput_inode = inode; + + spin_lock(&mk->mk_decrypted_inodes_lock); + } + + spin_unlock(&mk->mk_decrypted_inodes_lock); + iput(toput_inode); +}It takes a new reference to each decrypted inode, and then drops it again after all the dentry cache references have been killed and we've got a reference to the next inode in the list. Killing the dentry references to the inode means it should only have in-use references and the reference this function holds on it. If the inode is not in use then there will be only one, and so it will fall into iput_final() and the ->drop_inode() function determines if the inode should be evicted from the cache and destroyed immediately. IOWs, implement fscrypt_drop_inode() to do the right thing when the key has been destroyed, and you can get rid of all this crazy inode cache walk-and-invalidate hackery.
Thanks for the feedback! If I understand correctly, your suggestion is: - Keep evict_dentries_for_decrypted_inodes() as-is, i.e. fscrypt would still evict the dentries for all inodes in ->mk_decrypted_inodes. (I don't see how it could work otherwise.) - However, evict_decrypted_inodes() would be removed and fscrypt would not directly evict the list of inodes. Instead, the filesystem's ->drop_inode() would be made to return 1 if the inode's master key has been removed. Thus each inode, if no longer in use, would end up getting evicted during the iput() in evict_dentries_for_decrypted_inodes(). I hadn't thought of this, and I think it would work; I'll try implementing it. It would also have the advantage that if a key is removed while an inode is still in-use, that inode will be evicted as soon as it's no longer in use rather than waiting around until another FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY. The ioctl will need a different way to determine whether any inodes couldn't be evicted, but simply checking whether ->mk_decrypted_inodes ended up empty or not should work. FWIW, originally I also considered leaving the inodes in the inode cache and instead only freeing ->i_crypt_info and truncating the pagecache. But I don't see a way to do it even with this new idea; for one, ->drop_inode() is called under ->i_lock. So it seems that eviction is still the way to go. - Eric