lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] dm: add support for passing through inline crypto support
    On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:40:22AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at 3:48am -0400,
    > Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:21:03PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
    > > > On Wed, Sep 09 2020 at 7:44pm -0400,
    > > > Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
    > > > >
    > > > > Update the device-mapper core to support exposing the inline crypto
    > > > > support of the underlying device(s) through the device-mapper device.
    > > > >
    > > > > This works by creating a "passthrough keyslot manager" for the dm
    > > > > device, which declares support for encryption settings which all
    > > > > underlying devices support. When a supported setting is used, the bio
    > > > > cloning code handles cloning the crypto context to the bios for all the
    > > > > underlying devices. When an unsupported setting is used, the blk-crypto
    > > > > fallback is used as usual.
    > > > >
    > > > > Crypto support on each underlying device is ignored unless the
    > > > > corresponding dm target opts into exposing it. This is needed because
    > > > > for inline crypto to semantically operate on the original bio, the data
    > > > > must not be transformed by the dm target. Thus, targets like dm-linear
    > > > > can expose crypto support of the underlying device, but targets like
    > > > > dm-crypt can't. (dm-crypt could use inline crypto itself, though.)
    > > > >
    > > > > When a key is evicted from the dm device, it is evicted from all
    > > > > underlying devices.
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
    > > > > Co-developed-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
    > > > > ---
    > > > > block/blk-crypto.c | 1 +
    > > > > block/keyslot-manager.c | 34 ++++++++++++
    > > > > drivers/md/dm-core.h | 4 ++
    > > > > drivers/md/dm-table.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
    > > > > drivers/md/dm.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
    > > > > include/linux/device-mapper.h | 6 +++
    > > > > include/linux/keyslot-manager.h | 7 +++
    > > > > 7 files changed, 195 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    > > > >
    >
    > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-core.h b/drivers/md/dm-core.h
    > > > > index c4ef1fceead6..4542050eebfc 100644
    > > > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-core.h
    > > > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-core.h
    > > > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
    > > > > #include <linux/kthread.h>
    > > > > #include <linux/ktime.h>
    > > > > #include <linux/blk-mq.h>
    > > > > +#include <linux/keyslot-manager.h>
    > > > >
    > > > > #include <trace/events/block.h>
    > > > >
    > > > > @@ -49,6 +50,9 @@ struct mapped_device {
    > > > >
    > > > > int numa_node_id;
    > > > > struct request_queue *queue;
    > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_INLINE_ENCRYPTION
    > > > > + struct blk_keyslot_manager ksm;
    > > > > +#endif
    > > > >
    > > > > atomic_t holders;
    > > > > atomic_t open_count;
    > > >
    > > > Any reason you placed the ksm member where you did?
    > >
    > > As in, any reason why it's placed right after the struct request_queue
    > > *queue? The ksm is going to be set up in the request_queue and is a part
    > > of the request_queue is some sense, so it seemed reasonable to me to
    > > group them together....but I don't think there's any reason it *has* to
    > > be there, if you think it should be put elsewhere (or maybe I'm
    > > misunderstanding your question :) ).
    >
    > Placing the full struct where you did is highly disruptive to the prior
    > care taken to tune alignment of struct members within mapped_device.
    >
    Ah I see - sorry about that! I ended up removing it entirely in the next
    version of this series while trying to address this and your other
    comments :). The next version is at

    https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20201015214632.41951-5-satyat@google.com/

    > Switching to a pointer will be less so, but even still it might be best
    > to either find a hole in the struct (not looked recently, but there may
    > not be one) or simply put it at the end of the structure.
    >
    > The pahole utility is very useful for this kind of struct member
    > placement, etc. But it is increasingly unavailable in modern Linux
    > distros...
    >
    > Mike
    >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-10-15 23:56    [W:3.273 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site