lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: A patch to loop.c for better cryption support
    Andi Kleen wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:15:21PM +0000, Marc Mutz wrote:
    <snip>
    > > This thread was about encryption. And it was about IV's. The only
    > > encryption that vanilla loop.c (from 2.2.17) offers is 'none' and 'xor'.
    > > None is just that: a no-op. And xor does not use an IV. So the only
    > > ciphers that could possibly have been adressed by this patch are the
    > > ones in the kerneli patch. So the on-disk format did _not_ change
    >
    > And any other filter modules which use the open loadable block
    > converter interface in the loop device. That kerneli exists as a patch is
    > IMHO just an historical accident, near all of it can be done fine without
    > ever touching any linux source at all. Please take a small peek out of
    > your small world ;)
    >

    OK, I did not think of such. Are there any? Can you give an example and
    pointers?

    > BTW, kerneli would also not handle the case of switching block sizes anyways,
    > with relative IVs or not, because it does not restart its CFB chain inside
    > the device blocks every 512 byte blocks with a new IV. When you switch
    > from a bigger block size to a smaller you would need backwards peeking to
    > earlier blocks (and know the block size anyways). Similar problem for
    > going to bigger blocks. Ingo's change makes it a bit less painless, but
    > still not trivial to handle.
    <snip>

    Please re-read my mails. I never said that the current kerneli patch
    does this right. In the end, I just suggest that Ingos patch included
    some mechanism to allow for backwards compatibility.

    Marc Mutz wrote in reply to Ingo Rohloff:
    <snip>
    > Your approach is not so far away from what I suggested (which is a
    > simplification of what Alex suggested to me when I came up with pretty
    > much the same idea as you). In fact, your approach could well be default
    > way of encryption, but there should be a way to set the block size. At
    > least to the block size of the underlying (call it compatibility mode or
    > so). <interrupted>

    So, the only provision that needs to be made to ensure backwards
    compatibility (both with the kerneli patch and other modules that still
    use absolute block numbers) is a way to switch between the new approach
    and the old, defaulting to the new. The easiest way to do this, IMO, is
    to allocate a new field 'encryption_chunk_size' or so from the set of
    reserved words in struct loop_info. One might even get away with a
    single bit, indicating whether to use 512 byte blocks or underlying
    blocks as encryption chunks. Maybe lo_flags could be used when it
    becomes allowed to set the single bit LO_FLAGS_USE_512_BYTE_CHUNKS or
    so. Then teach losetup to set this bit unless instructed not to.

    - Old losetups would still work the same way they do today.
    - When switching to new losetups, one can do the conversion using the
    command line switch (e.g.) --use-compatibility-IVs

    You can even make compatibility mode support in the kernel a
    compile-time option. Is this mechanism acceptable?

    > Yet, I think that there may be some clever uses for a completely
    > free choice of the encryption chunk size, down to one cipher block size
    > and up to the underlying's block size.
    <snip>

    The above snippet was just a train of thoughts.

    Marc

    --
    Marc Mutz <Marc@Mutz.com> http://EncryptionHOWTO.sourceforge.net/
    University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics

    PGP-keyID's: 0xd46ce9ab (RSA), 0x7ae55b9e (DSS/DH)

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.024 / U:29.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site