| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Make fscrypt no longer use Crypto API drivers for non-inline crypto
engines, even when the Crypto API prioritizes them over CPU-based code
(which unfortunately it often does). These drivers tend to be really
problematic, especially for fscrypt's workload. This commit has no
effect on inline crypto engines, which are different and do work well.
Specifically, exclude drivers that have CRYPTO_ALG_KERN_DRIVER_ONLY or
CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY set. (Later, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC should be
excluded too. That's omitted for now to keep this commit backportable,
since until recently some CPU-based code had CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC set.)
There are two major issues with these drivers: bugs and performance.
First, these drivers tend to be buggy. They're fundamentally much more
error-prone and harder to test than the CPU-based code. They often
don't get tested before kernel releases, and even if they do, the crypto
self-tests don't properly test these drivers. Released drivers have
en/decrypted or hashed data incorrectly. These bugs cause issues for
fscrypt users who often didn't even want to use these drivers, e.g.:
- https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/32
- https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/9
- https://lore.kernel.org/r/PH0PR02MB731916ECDB6C613665863B6CFFAA2@PH0PR02MB7319.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
These drivers have also similarly caused issues for dm-crypt users,
including data corruption and deadlocks. Since Linux v5.10, dm-crypt
has disabled most of them by excluding CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY.
Second, these drivers tend to be *much* slower than the CPU-based code.
This may seem counterintuitive, but benchmarks clearly show it. There's
a *lot* of overhead associated with going to a hardware driver, off the
CPU, and back again. To prove this, I gathered as many systems with
this type of crypto engine as I could, and I measured synchronous
encryption of 4096-byte messages (which matches fscrypt's workload):
Intel Emerald Rapids server:
AES-256-XTS:
xts-aes-vaes-avx512 16171 MB/s [CPU-based, Vector AES]
qat_aes_xts 289 MB/s [Offload, Intel QuickAssist]
Qualcomm SM8650 HDK:
AES-256-XTS:
xts-aes-ce 4301 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions]
xts-aes-qce 73 MB/s [Offload, Qualcomm Crypto Engine]
i.MX 8M Nano LPDDR4 EVK:
AES-256-XTS:
xts-aes-ce 647 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions]
xts(ecb-aes-caam) 20 MB/s [Offload, CAAM]
AES-128-CBC-ESSIV:
essiv(cbc-aes-caam,sha256-lib) 23 MB/s [Offload, CAAM]
STM32MP157F-DK2:
AES-256-XTS:
xts-aes-neonbs 13.2 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON]
xts(stm32-ecb-aes) 3.1 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine]
AES-128-CBC-ESSIV:
essiv(cbc-aes-neonbs,sha256-lib)
14.7 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON]
essiv(stm32-cbc-aes,sha256-lib)
3.2 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine]
Adiantum:
adiantum(xchacha12-arm,aes-arm,nhpoly1305-neon)
52.8 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM scalar + NEON]
So, there was no case in which the crypto engine was even *close* to
being faster. On the first three, which have AES instructions in the
CPU, the CPU was 30 to 55 times faster (!). Even on STM32MP157F-DK2
which has a Cortex-A7 CPU that doesn't have AES instructions, AES was
over 4 times faster on the CPU. And Adiantum encryption, which is what
actually should be used on CPUs like that, was over 17 times faster.
Other justifications that have been given for these non-inline crypto
engines (almost always coming from the hardware vendors, not actual
users) don't seem very plausible either:
- The crypto engine throughput could be improved by processing
multiple requests concurrently. Currently irrelevant to fscrypt,
since it doesn't do that. This would also be complex, and unhelpful
in many cases. 2 of the 4 engines I tested even had only one queue.
- Some of the engines, e.g. STM32, support hardware keys. Also
currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't support these.
Interestingly, the STM32 driver itself doesn't support this either.
- Free up CPU for other tasks and/or reduce energy usage. Not very
plausible considering the "short" message length, driver overhead,
and scheduling overhead. There's just very little time for the CPU
to do something else like run another task or enter low-power state,
before the message finishes and it's time to process the next one.
- Some of these engines resist power analysis and electromagnetic
attacks, while the CPU-based crypto generally does not. In theory,
this sounds great. In practice, if this benefit requires the use of
an off-CPU offload that massively regresses performance and has a
low-quality, buggy driver, the price for this hardening (which is
not relevant to most fscrypt users, and tends to be incomplete) is
just too high. Inline crypto engines are much more promising here,
as are on-CPU solutions like RISC-V High Assurance Cryptography.
Fixes: b30ab0e03407 ("ext4 crypto: add ext4 encryption facilities")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250704070322.20692-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
|
|
Fix build warnings with W=1 that started appearing after
commit a934a57a42f6 ("scripts/misc-check: check missing #include
<linux/export.h> when W=1").
While at it, also sort the include lists alphabetically.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250614221301.100803-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
|
|
Add support for hardware-wrapped keys to fscrypt. Such keys are
protected from certain attacks, such as cold boot attacks. For more
information, see the "Hardware-wrapped keys" section of
Documentation/block/inline-encryption.rst.
To support hardware-wrapped keys in fscrypt, we allow the fscrypt master
keys to be hardware-wrapped. File contents encryption is done by
passing the wrapped key to the inline encryption hardware via
blk-crypto. Other fscrypt operations such as filenames encryption
continue to be done by the kernel, using the "software secret" which the
hardware derives. For more information, see the documentation which
this patch adds to Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst.
Note that this feature doesn't require any filesystem-specific changes.
However it does depend on inline encryption support, and thus currently
it is only applicable to ext4 and f2fs.
The version of this feature introduced by this patch is mostly
equivalent to the version that has existed downstream in the Android
Common Kernels since 2020. However, a couple fixes are included.
First, the flags field in struct fscrypt_add_key_arg is now placed in
the proper location. Second, key identifiers for HW-wrapped keys are
now derived using a distinct HKDF context byte; this fixes a bug where a
raw key could have the same identifier as a HW-wrapped key. Note that
as a result of these fixes, the version of this feature introduced by
this patch is not UAPI or on-disk format compatible with the version in
the Android Common Kernels, though the divergence is limited to just
those specific fixes. This version should be used going forwards.
This patch has been heavily rewritten from the original version by
Gaurav Kashyap <quic_gaurkash@quicinc.com> and
Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@codeaurora.org>.
Tested-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> # sm8650
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250404225859.172344-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
Separate out the HKDF functions into a separate module to
to make them available to other callers.
And add a testsuite to the module with test vectors
from RFC 5869 (and additional vectors for SHA384 and SHA512)
to ensure the integrity of the algorithm.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
|
|
As per Linus's suggestion
(https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=whefxRGyNGzCzG6BVeM=5vnvgb-XhSeFJVxJyAxAF8XRA@mail.gmail.com),
use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON. This barely adds any extra
overhead, and it makes it so that if any of these ever becomes reachable
(they shouldn't, but that's the point), the logs can't be flooded.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320233943.73600-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
fscrypt currently requires a 512-bit master key when AES-256-XTS is
used, since AES-256-XTS keys are 512-bit and fscrypt requires that the
master key be at least as long any key that will be derived from it.
However, this is overly strict because AES-256-XTS doesn't actually have
a 512-bit security strength, but rather 256-bit. The fact that XTS
takes twice the expected key size is a quirk of the XTS mode. It is
sufficient to use 256 bits of entropy for AES-256-XTS, provided that it
is first properly expanded into a 512-bit key, which HKDF-SHA512 does.
Therefore, relax the check of the master key size to use the security
strength of the derived key rather than the size of the derived key
(except for v1 encryption policies, which don't use HKDF).
Besides making things more flexible for userspace, this is needed in
order for the use of a KDF which only takes a 256-bit key to be
introduced into the fscrypt key hierarchy. This will happen with
hardware-wrapped keys support, as all known hardware which supports that
feature uses an SP800-108 KDF using AES-256-CMAC, so the wrapped keys
are wrapped 256-bit AES keys. Moreover, there is interest in fscrypt
supporting the same type of AES-256-CMAC based KDF in software as an
alternative to HKDF-SHA512. There is no security problem with such
features, so fix the key length check to work properly with them.
Reviewed-by: Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210921030303.5598-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
Currently <crypto/sha.h> contains declarations for both SHA-1 and SHA-2,
and <crypto/sha3.h> contains declarations for SHA-3.
This organization is inconsistent, but more importantly SHA-1 is no
longer considered to be cryptographically secure. So to the extent
possible, SHA-1 shouldn't be grouped together with any of the other SHA
versions, and usage of it should be phased out.
Therefore, split <crypto/sha.h> into two headers <crypto/sha1.h> and
<crypto/sha2.h>, and make everyone explicitly specify whether they want
the declarations for SHA-1, SHA-2, or both.
This avoids making the SHA-1 declarations visible to files that don't
want anything to do with SHA-1. It also prepares for potentially moving
sha1.h into a new insecure/ or dangerous/ directory.
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
Instead of manually allocating a 'struct shash_desc' on the stack and
calling crypto_shash_digest(), switch to using the new helper function
crypto_shash_tfm_digest() which does this for us.
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
Constify the struct fscrypt_hkdf parameter to fscrypt_hkdf_expand().
This makes it clearer that struct fscrypt_hkdf contains the key only,
not any per-request state.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191209204054.227736-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
|
Add an implementation of HKDF (RFC 5869) to fscrypt, for the purpose of
deriving additional key material from the fscrypt master keys for v2
encryption policies. HKDF is a key derivation function built on top of
HMAC. We choose SHA-512 for the underlying unkeyed hash, and use an
"hmac(sha512)" transform allocated from the crypto API.
We'll be using this to replace the AES-ECB based KDF currently used to
derive the per-file encryption keys. While the AES-ECB based KDF is
believed to meet the original security requirements, it is nonstandard
and has problems that don't exist in modern KDFs such as HKDF:
1. It's reversible. Given a derived key and nonce, an attacker can
easily compute the master key. This is okay if the master key and
derived keys are equally hard to compromise, but now we'd like to be
more robust against threats such as a derived key being compromised
through a timing attack, or a derived key for an in-use file being
compromised after the master key has already been removed.
2. It doesn't evenly distribute the entropy from the master key; each 16
input bytes only affects the corresponding 16 output bytes.
3. It isn't easily extensible to deriving other values or keys, such as
a public hash for securely identifying the key, or per-mode keys.
Per-mode keys will be immediately useful for Adiantum encryption, for
which fscrypt currently uses the master key directly, introducing
unnecessary usage constraints. Per-mode keys will also be useful for
hardware inline encryption, which is currently being worked on.
HKDF solves all the above problems.
Reviewed-by: Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
|
