| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Document how to test ext4, f2fs, and ubifs encryption with xfstests.
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
fscrypt only uses SHA-256 for AES-128-CBC-ESSIV, which isn't the default
and is only recommended on platforms that have hardware accelerated
AES-CBC but not AES-XTS. There's no link-time dependency, since SHA-256
is requested via the crypto API on first use.
To reduce bloat, we should limit FS_ENCRYPTION to selecting the default
algorithms only. SHA-256 by itself isn't that much bloat, but it's
being discussed to move ESSIV into a crypto API template, which would
incidentally bring in other things like "authenc" support, which would
all end up being built-in since FS_ENCRYPTION is now a bool.
For Adiantum encryption we already just document that users who want to
use it have to enable CONFIG_CRYPTO_ADIANTUM themselves. So, let's do
the same for AES-128-CBC-ESSIV and CONFIG_CRYPTO_SHA256.
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
Currently, trying to rename or link a regular file, directory, or
symlink into an encrypted directory fails with EPERM when the source
file is unencrypted or is encrypted with a different encryption policy,
and is on the same mountpoint. It is correct for the operation to fail,
but the choice of EPERM breaks tools like 'mv' that know to copy rather
than rename if they see EXDEV, but don't know what to do with EPERM.
Our original motivation for EPERM was to encourage users to securely
handle their data. Encrypting files by "moving" them into an encrypted
directory can be insecure because the unencrypted data may remain in
free space on disk, where it can later be recovered by an attacker.
It's much better to encrypt the data from the start, or at least try to
securely delete the source data e.g. using the 'shred' program.
However, the current behavior hasn't been effective at achieving its
goal because users tend to be confused, hack around it, and complain;
see e.g. https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/76. And in some cases
it's actually inconsistent or unnecessary. For example, 'mv'-ing files
between differently encrypted directories doesn't work even in cases
where it can be secure, such as when in userspace the same passphrase
protects both directories. Yet, you *can* already 'mv' unencrypted
files into an encrypted directory if the source files are on a different
mountpoint, even though doing so is often insecure.
There are probably better ways to teach users to securely handle their
files. For example, the 'fscrypt' userspace tool could provide a
command that migrates unencrypted files into an encrypted directory,
acting like 'shred' on the source files and providing appropriate
warnings depending on the type of the source filesystem and disk.
Receiving errors on unimportant files might also force some users to
disable encryption, thus making the behavior counterproductive. It's
desirable to make encryption as unobtrusive as possible.
Therefore, change the error code from EPERM to EXDEV so that tools
looking for EXDEV will fall back to a copy.
This, of course, doesn't prevent users from still doing the right things
to securely manage their files. Note that this also matches the
behavior when a file is renamed between two project quota hierarchies;
so there's precedent for using EXDEV for things other than mountpoints.
xfstests generic/398 will require an update with this change.
[Rewritten from an earlier patch series by Michael Halcrow.]
Cc: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@google.com>
Cc: Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
In order to have a common code base for fscrypt "post read" processing
for all filesystems which support encryption, this commit removes
filesystem specific build config option (e.g. CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION)
and replaces it with a build option (i.e. CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION) whose
value affects all the filesystems making use of fscrypt.
Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
Add support for the Adiantum encryption mode to fscrypt. Adiantum is a
tweakable, length-preserving encryption mode with security provably
reducible to that of XChaCha12 and AES-256, subject to a security bound.
It's also a true wide-block mode, unlike XTS. See the paper
"Adiantum: length-preserving encryption for entry-level processors"
(https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/720.pdf) for more details. Also see
commit 059c2a4d8e16 ("crypto: adiantum - add Adiantum support").
On sufficiently long messages, Adiantum's bottlenecks are XChaCha12 and
the NH hash function. These algorithms are fast even on processors
without dedicated crypto instructions. Adiantum makes it feasible to
enable storage encryption on low-end mobile devices that lack AES
instructions; currently such devices are unencrypted. On ARM Cortex-A7,
on 4096-byte messages Adiantum encryption is about 4 times faster than
AES-256-XTS encryption; decryption is about 5 times faster.
In fscrypt, Adiantum is suitable for encrypting both file contents and
names. With filenames, it fixes a known weakness: when two filenames in
a directory share a common prefix of >= 16 bytes, with CTS-CBC their
encrypted filenames share a common prefix too, leaking information.
Adiantum does not have this problem.
Since Adiantum also accepts long tweaks (IVs), it's also safe to use the
master key directly for Adiantum encryption rather than deriving
per-file keys, provided that the per-file nonce is included in the IVs
and the master key isn't used for any other encryption mode. This
configuration saves memory and improves performance. A new fscrypt
policy flag is added to allow users to opt-in to this configuration.
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
|
These are unused, undesired, and have never actually been used by
anybody. The original authors of this code have changed their mind about
its inclusion. While originally proposed for disk encryption on low-end
devices, the idea was discarded [1] in favor of something else before
that could really get going. Therefore, this patch removes Speck.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-crypto-vger&m=153359499015659
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Acked-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
fscrypt currently only supports AES encryption. However, many low-end
mobile devices have older CPUs that don't have AES instructions, e.g.
the ARMv8 Cryptography Extensions. Currently, user data on such devices
is not encrypted at rest because AES is too slow, even when the NEON
bit-sliced implementation of AES is used. Unfortunately, it is
infeasible to encrypt these devices at all when AES is the only option.
Therefore, this patch updates fscrypt to support the Speck block cipher,
which was recently added to the crypto API. The C implementation of
Speck is not especially fast, but Speck can be implemented very
efficiently with general-purpose vector instructions, e.g. ARM NEON.
For example, on an ARMv7 processor, we measured the NEON-accelerated
Speck128/256-XTS at 69 MB/s for both encryption and decryption, while
AES-256-XTS with the NEON bit-sliced implementation was only 22 MB/s
encryption and 19 MB/s decryption.
There are multiple variants of Speck. This patch only adds support for
Speck128/256, which is the variant with a 128-bit block size and 256-bit
key size -- the same as AES-256. This is believed to be the most secure
variant of Speck, and it's only about 6% slower than Speck128/128.
Speck64/128 would be at least 20% faster because it has 20% rounds, and
it can be even faster on CPUs that can't efficiently do the 64-bit
operations needed for Speck128. However, Speck64's 64-bit block size is
not preferred security-wise. ARM NEON also supports the needed 64-bit
operations even on 32-bit CPUs, resulting in Speck128 being fast enough
for our targeted use cases so far.
The chosen modes of operation are XTS for contents and CTS-CBC for
filenames. These are the same modes of operation that fscrypt defaults
to for AES. Note that as with the other fscrypt modes, Speck will not
be used unless userspace chooses to use it. Nor are any of the existing
modes (which are all AES-based) being removed, of course.
We intentionally don't make CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION select
CONFIG_CRYPTO_SPECK, so people will have to enable Speck support
themselves if they need it. This is because we shouldn't bloat the
FS_ENCRYPTION dependencies with every new cipher, especially ones that
aren't recommended for most users. Moreover, CRYPTO_SPECK is just the
generic implementation, which won't be fast enough for many users; in
practice, they'll need to enable CRYPTO_SPECK_NEON to get acceptable
performance.
More details about our choice of Speck can be found in our patches that
added Speck to the crypto API, and the follow-on discussion threads.
We're planning a publication that explains the choice in more detail.
But briefly, we can't use ChaCha20 as we previously proposed, since it
would be insecure to use a stream cipher in this context, with potential
IV reuse during writes on f2fs and/or on wear-leveling flash storage.
We also evaluated many other lightweight and/or ARX-based block ciphers
such as Chaskey-LTS, RC5, LEA, CHAM, Threefish, RC6, NOEKEON, SPARX, and
XTEA. However, all had disadvantages vs. Speck, such as insufficient
performance with NEON, much less published cryptanalysis, or an
insufficient security level. Various design choices in Speck make it
perform better with NEON than competing ciphers while still having a
security margin similar to AES, and in the case of Speck128 also the
same available security levels. Unfortunately, Speck does have some
political baggage attached -- it's an NSA designed cipher, and was
rejected from an ISO standard (though for context, as far as I know none
of the above-mentioned alternatives are ISO standards either).
Nevertheless, we believe it is a good solution to the problem from a
technical perspective.
Certain algorithms constructed from ChaCha or the ChaCha permutation,
such as MEM (Masked Even-Mansour) or HPolyC, may also meet our
performance requirements. However, these are new constructions that
need more time to receive the cryptographic review and acceptance needed
to be confident in their security. HPolyC hasn't been published yet,
and we are concerned that MEM makes stronger assumptions about the
underlying permutation than the ChaCha stream cipher does. In contrast,
the XTS mode of operation is relatively well accepted, and Speck has
over 70 cryptanalysis papers. Of course, these ChaCha-based algorithms
can still be added later if they become ready.
The best known attack on Speck128/256 is a differential cryptanalysis
attack on 25 of 34 rounds with 2^253 time complexity and 2^125 chosen
plaintexts, i.e. only marginally faster than brute force. There is no
known attack on the full 34 rounds.
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
|
Document that encryption reduces the maximum length of a symlink target
slightly.
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
|
Perhaps long overdue, add a documentation file for filesystem-level
encryption, a.k.a. fscrypt or fs/crypto/, to the Documentation
directory. The new file is based loosely on the latest version of the
"EXT4 Encryption Design Document (public version)" Google Doc, but with
many improvements made, including:
- Reflect the reality that it is not specific to ext4 anymore.
- More thoroughly document the design and user-visible API/behavior.
- Replace outdated information, such as the outdated explanation of how
encrypted filenames are hashed for indexed directories and how
encrypted filenames are presented to userspace without the key.
(This was changed just before release.)
For now the focus is on the design and user-visible API/behavior, not on
how to add encryption support to a filesystem --- since the internal API
is still pretty messy and any standalone documentation for it would
become outdated as things get refactored over time.
Reviewed-by: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
|
Eric Biggers
Chandan Rajendra
Jason A. Donenfeld