Re: [PATCH 2/3] dm: add support for passing through inline crypto support

[Mike Snitzer]

On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at  3:17am -0400,
Satya Tangirala <satyat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:14:39PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21 2020 at  8:32pm -0400,
> > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:44:21PM +0000, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Update the device-mapper core to support exposing the inline crypto
> > > > support of the underlying device(s) through the device-mapper device.
> > > > 
> > > > This works by creating a "passthrough keyslot manager" for the dm
> > > > device, which declares support for encryption settings which all
> > > > underlying devices support.  When a supported setting is used, the bio
> > > > cloning code handles cloning the crypto context to the bios for all the
> > > > underlying devices.  When an unsupported setting is used, the blk-crypto
> > > > fallback is used as usual.
> > > > 
> > > > Crypto support on each underlying device is ignored unless the
> > > > corresponding dm target opts into exposing it.  This is needed because
> > > > for inline crypto to semantically operate on the original bio, the data
> > > > must not be transformed by the dm target.  Thus, targets like dm-linear
> > > > can expose crypto support of the underlying device, but targets like
> > > > dm-crypt can't.  (dm-crypt could use inline crypto itself, though.)
> > > > 
> > > > When a key is evicted from the dm device, it is evicted from all
> > > > underlying devices.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Looks good as far as Satya's changes from my original patch are concerned.
> > > 
> > > Can the device-mapper maintainers take a look at this?
> > 
> > In general it looks like these changes were implemented very carefully
> > and are reasonable if we _really_ want to enable passing through inline
> > crypto.
> > 
> > I do have concerns about the inability to handle changes at runtime (due
> > to a table reload that introduces new devices without the encryption
> > settings the existing devices in the table are using).  But the fallback
> > mechanism saves it from being a complete non-starter.
>
> Unfortunately, the fallback doesn't completely handle that situation
> right now. The DM device could be suspended while an upper layer like
> fscrypt is doing something like "checking if encryption algorithm 'A'
> is supported by the DM device". It's possible that fscrypt thinks
> the DM device supports 'A' even though the DM device is suspended, and
> the table is about to be reloaded to introduce a new device that doesn't
> support 'A'. Before the DM device is resumed with the new table, fscrypt
> might send a bio that uses encryption algorithm 'A' without initializing
> the blk-crypto-fallback ciphers for 'A', because it believes that the DM
> device supports 'A'. When the bio gets processed by the DM (or when
> blk-crypto does its checks to decide whether to use the fallback on that
> bio), the bio will fail because the fallback ciphers aren't initialized.
> 
> Off the top of my head, one thing we could do is to always allocate the
> fallback ciphers when the device mapper is the target device for the bio
> (by maybe adding a "encryption_capabilities_may_change_at_runtime" flag
> to struct blk_keyslot_manager that the DM will set to true, and that
> the block layer will check for and decide to appropriately allocate
> the fallback ciphers), although this does waste memory on systems
> where we know the DM device tables will never change....

Yeah, I agree that'd be too wasteful.
 
> This patch also doesn't handle the case when the encryption capabilities
> of the new table are a superset of the old capabilities.  Currently, a
> DM device's capabilities can only shrink after the device is initially
> created. They can never "expand" to make use of capabilities that might
> be added due to introduction of new devices via table reloads.  I might
> be forgetting something I thought of before, but looking at it again
> now, I don't immediately see anything wrong with expanding the
> advertised capabilities on table reload....I'll look carefully into that
> again.

OK, that'd be good (expanding capabilities on reload).

And conversely, you _could_ also fail a reload if the new device(s)
don't have capabilities that are in use by the active table.

> > Can you help me better understand the expected consumer of this code?
> > If you have something _real_ please be explicit.  It makes justifying
> > supporting niche code like this more tolerable.
>
> So the motivation for this code was that Android currently uses a device
> mapper target on top of a phone's disk for user data. On many phones,
> that disk has inline encryption support, and it'd be great to be able to
> make use of that. The DM device configuration isn't changed at runtime.

OK, which device mapper target is used?

Thanks,
Mike