Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] ext4: add basic fs-verity support
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Date: 2019-06-18 17:51:22
Also in:
linux-ext4, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fscrypt, linux-fsdevel, linux-integrity
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:52:03AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:quoted
+/* + * Format of ext4 verity xattr. This points to the location of the verity + * descriptor within the file data rather than containing it directly because + * the verity descriptor *must* be encrypted when ext4 encryption is used. But, + * ext4 encryption does not encrypt xattrs. + */ +struct fsverity_descriptor_location { + __le32 version; + __le32 size; + __le64 pos; +};What's the benefit of storing the location in an xattr as opposed to just keying it off the end of i_size, rounded up to next page size (or 64k) as I had suggested earlier? Using an xattr burns xattr space, which is a limited resource, and it adds some additional code complexity. Does the benefits outweigh the added complexity? - Ted
It means that only the fs/verity/ support layer has to be aware of the format of the fsverity_descriptor, and the filesystem can just treat it an as opaque blob. Otherwise the filesystem would need to read the first 'sizeof(struct fsverity_descriptor)' bytes and use those to calculate the size as 'sizeof(struct fsverity_descriptor) + le32_to_cpu(desc.sig_size)', then read the rest. Is this what you have in mind? Alternatively the filesystem could prepend the fsverity_descriptor with its size, similar to how in the v1 and v2 patchsets there was an fsverity_footer appended to the fsverity_descriptor. But an xattr seems a cleaner approach to store a few bytes that don't need to be encrypted. Putting the verity descriptor before the Merkle tree also means that we'd have to pass the desc_size to ->begin_enable_verity(), ->read_merkle_tree_page(), and ->write_merkle_tree_block(), versus just passing the merkle_tree_size to ->end_enable_verity(). This would be easy, but it would still add a bit of complexity in the fsverity_operations rather than reduce it. It's also somewhat nice to have the version number in the xattr, in case we ever introduce a new fs-verity format for ext4 or f2fs. So to me, it doesn't seem like the other possible solutions are better. - Eric