Re: [PATCH] block: Fix regression in sed-opal for a saved key.

[Milan Broz]

On 10/5/23 19:58, Greg Joyce wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 08:58 +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> > On 10/4/23 22:54, Greg Joyce wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2023-10-03 at 12:02 +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> > > > The commit 3bfeb61256643281ac4be5b8a57e9d9da3db4335
> > > > introduced the use of keyring for sed-opal.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, there is also a possibility to save
> > > > the Opal key used in opal_lock_unlock().
> > > >
> > > > This patch switches the order of operation, so the cached
> > > > key is used instead of failure for opal_get_key.
> > > >
> > > > The problem was found by the cryptsetup Opal test recently
> > > > added to the cryptsetup tree.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 3bfeb6125664 ("block: sed-opal: keyring support for SED
> > > > keys")
> > > > Tested-by: Ondrej Kozina <okozina@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Milan Broz <gmazyland@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    block/sed-opal.c | 7 +++----
> > > >    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/block/sed-opal.c b/block/sed-opal.c
> > > > index 6d7f25d1711b..04f38a3f5d95 100644
> > > > --- a/block/sed-opal.c
> > > > +++ b/block/sed-opal.c
> > > > @@ -2888,12 +2888,11 @@ static int opal_lock_unlock(struct
> > > > opal_dev
> > > > *dev,
> > > >    	if (lk_unlk->session.who > OPAL_USER9)
> > > >    		return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > -	ret = opal_get_key(dev, &lk_unlk->session.opal_key);
> > > > -	if (ret)
> > > > -		return ret;
> > > >    	mutex_lock(&dev->dev_lock);
> > > >    	opal_lock_check_for_saved_key(dev, lk_unlk);
> > > > -	ret = __opal_lock_unlock(dev, lk_unlk);
> > > > +	ret = opal_get_key(dev, &lk_unlk->session.opal_key);
> > > > +	if (!ret)
> > > > +		ret = __opal_lock_unlock(dev, lk_unlk);
> > >
> > > This is relying on opal_get_key() returning 0 to decide if
> > > __opal_lock_unlock() is called. Is this really what you want? It
> > > seems
> > > that you would want to unlock if the key is a LUKS key, even if
> > > opal_get_key() returns non-zero.
> >
> > I think it is ok. That was logic introduced in your keyring patch
> > anyway.
> >
> > I just fixed that if key is cached (stored in OPAL struct), that key
> > is used
> > and subsequent opal_get_key() does nothing, returning 0.
> >
> > The story is here that both OPAL lock and unlock need key, while LUKS
> > logic never required key for lock (deactivation), so we rely on the
> > cached
> > OPAL key here. We do not need any key stored for unlocking (that is
> > always
> > decrypted from a keyslot)
> > (I think requiring key for locking range is a design mistake in OPAL
> > but
> > that's not relevant for now :-)
>
> Okay, if the key is such that opal_get_key() always returns 0, then I
> agree there isn't an issue.


Jens, what's the status of this patch?

It is clear regression in 6.6 (I forgot to add regression list, fixed now.)

For reference, the original report and patch is here
#regzbot link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20231003100209.380037-1-gmazyland@xxxxxxxxx/
#regzbot ^introduced 3bfeb6125664

Thanks,
Milan