mirror of
https://github.com/hardkernel/linux.git
synced 2026-06-05 10:31:46 +09:00
6b972d6047
Until now, fscrypt has always used the filesystem block size as the granularity of file contents encryption. Two scenarios have come up where a sub-block granularity of contents encryption would be useful: 1. Inline crypto hardware that only supports a crypto data unit size that is less than the filesystem block size. 2. Support for direct I/O at a granularity less than the filesystem block size, for example at the block device's logical block size in order to match the traditional direct I/O alignment requirement. (1) first came up with older eMMC inline crypto hardware that only supports a crypto data unit size of 512 bytes. That specific case ultimately went away because all systems with that hardware continued using out of tree code and never actually upgraded to the upstream inline crypto framework. But, now it's coming back in a new way: some current UFS controllers only support a data unit size of 4096 bytes, and there is a proposal to increase the filesystem block size to 16K. (2) was discussed as a "nice to have" feature, though not essential, when support for direct I/O on encrypted files was being upstreamed. Still, the fact that this feature has come up several times does suggest it would be wise to have available. Therefore, this patch implements it by using one of the reserved bytes in fscrypt_policy_v2 to allow users to select a sub-block data unit size. Supported data unit sizes are powers of 2 between 512 and the filesystem block size, inclusively. Support is implemented for both the FS-layer and inline crypto cases. This patch focuses on the basic support for sub-block data units. Some things are out of scope for this patch but may be addressed later: - Supporting sub-block data units in combination with FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_IV_INO_LBLK_64, in most cases. Unfortunately this combination usually causes data unit indices to exceed 32 bits, and thus fscrypt_supported_policy() correctly disallows it. The users who potentially need this combination are using f2fs. To support it, f2fs would need to provide an option to slightly reduce its max file size. - Supporting sub-block data units in combination with FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_IV_INO_LBLK_32. This has the same problem described above, but also it will need special code to make DUN wraparound still happen on a FS block boundary. - Supporting use case (2) mentioned above. The encrypted direct I/O code will need to stop requiring and assuming FS block alignment. This won't be hard, but it belongs in a separate patch. - Supporting this feature on filesystems other than ext4 and f2fs. (Filesystems declare support for it via their fscrypt_operations.) On UBIFS, sub-block data units don't make sense because UBIFS encrypts variable-length blocks as a result of compression. CephFS could support it, but a bit more work would be needed to make the fscrypt_*_block_inplace functions play nicely with sub-block data units. I don't think there's a use case for this on CephFS anyway. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230925055451.59499-6-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Bug: 299136786 Bug: 302588300 (cherry picked from commit 5b11888471806edf699316d4dcb9b426caebbef2) (Reworked this commit to not change struct fscrypt_operations and not depend on other commits that changed struct fscrypt_operations. Also resolved conflicts with the HW-wrapped key support.) Change-Id: Ic3dc56ef3f42d123f812e9037e2cc6f0b24bacc1 Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
How do I submit patches to Android Common Kernels
-
BEST: Make all of your changes to upstream Linux. If appropriate, backport to the stable releases. These patches will be merged automatically in the corresponding common kernels. If the patch is already in upstream Linux, post a backport of the patch that conforms to the patch requirements below.
- Do not send patches upstream that contain only symbol exports. To be considered for upstream Linux,
additions of
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()require an in-tree modular driver that uses the symbol -- so include the new driver or changes to an existing driver in the same patchset as the export. - When sending patches upstream, the commit message must contain a clear case for why the patch is needed and beneficial to the community. Enabling out-of-tree drivers or functionality is not not a persuasive case.
- Do not send patches upstream that contain only symbol exports. To be considered for upstream Linux,
additions of
-
LESS GOOD: Develop your patches out-of-tree (from an upstream Linux point-of-view). Unless these are fixing an Android-specific bug, these are very unlikely to be accepted unless they have been coordinated with kernel-team@android.com. If you want to proceed, post a patch that conforms to the patch requirements below.
Common Kernel patch requirements
- All patches must conform to the Linux kernel coding standards and pass
scripts/checkpatch.pl - Patches shall not break gki_defconfig or allmodconfig builds for arm, arm64, x86, x86_64 architectures (see https://source.android.com/setup/build/building-kernels)
- If the patch is not merged from an upstream branch, the subject must be tagged with the type of patch:
UPSTREAM:,BACKPORT:,FROMGIT:,FROMLIST:, orANDROID:. - All patches must have a
Change-Id:tag (see https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-changeid.html) - If an Android bug has been assigned, there must be a
Bug:tag. - All patches must have a
Signed-off-by:tag by the author and the submitter
Additional requirements are listed below based on patch type
Requirements for backports from mainline Linux: UPSTREAM:, BACKPORT:
- If the patch is a cherry-pick from Linux mainline with no changes at all
- tag the patch subject with
UPSTREAM:. - add upstream commit information with a
(cherry picked from commit ...)line - Example:
- if the upstream commit message is
- tag the patch subject with
important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
- then Joe Smith would upload the patch for the common kernel as
UPSTREAM: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
(cherry picked from commit c31e73121f4c1ec41143423ac6ce3ce6dafdcec1)
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch requires any changes from the upstream version, tag the patch with
BACKPORT:instead ofUPSTREAM:.- use the same tags as
UPSTREAM: - add comments about the changes under the
(cherry picked from commit ...)line - Example:
- use the same tags as
BACKPORT: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
(cherry picked from commit c31e73121f4c1ec41143423ac6ce3ce6dafdcec1)
[joe: Resolved minor conflict in drivers/foo/bar.c ]
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
Requirements for other backports: FROMGIT:, FROMLIST:,
- If the patch has been merged into an upstream maintainer tree, but has not yet
been merged into Linux mainline
- tag the patch subject with
FROMGIT: - add info on where the patch came from as
(cherry picked from commit <sha1> <repo> <branch>). This must be a stable maintainer branch (not rebased, so don't uselinux-nextfor example). - if changes were required, use
BACKPORT: FROMGIT: - Example:
- if the commit message in the maintainer tree is
- tag the patch subject with
important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
- then Joe Smith would upload the patch for the common kernel as
FROMGIT: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
(cherry picked from commit 878a2fd9de10b03d11d2f622250285c7e63deace
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/foo/bar.git test-branch)
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch has been submitted to LKML, but not accepted into any maintainer tree
- tag the patch subject with
FROMLIST: - add a
Link:tag with a link to the submittal on lore.kernel.org - add a
Bug:tag with the Android bug (required for patches not accepted into a maintainer tree) - if changes were required, use
BACKPORT: FROMLIST: - Example:
- tag the patch subject with
FROMLIST: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190619171517.GA17557@someone.com/
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
Requirements for Android-specific patches: ANDROID:
- If the patch is fixing a bug to Android-specific code
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: - add a
Fixes:tag that cites the patch with the bug - Example:
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: fix android-specific bug in foobar.c
This is the detailed description of the important fix
Fixes: 1234abcd2468 ("foobar: add cool feature")
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch is a new feature
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: - add a
Bug:tag with the Android bug (required for android-specific features)
- tag the patch subject with