Eric, Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019, 06:49:39 CET schrieb Eric Biggers: > Hi Richard, > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:55 AM Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +#define FSCRYPT_FS_KEYRING_DESCRIPTION_SIZE \ > > > + (CONST_STRLEN("fscrypt-") + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct super_block, > > > s_id)) > > > + > > > +#define FSCRYPT_MK_DESCRIPTION_SIZE (2 * FSCRYPT_KEY_DESCRIPTOR_SIZE > > > + 1) > > > + > > > +static void format_fs_keyring_description( > > > + char > > > description[FSCRYPT_FS_KEYRING_DESCRIPTION_SIZE], > > > + const struct super_block *sb) > > > +{ > > > + sprintf(description, "fscrypt-%s", sb->s_id); > > > +} > > > > I fear ->s_id is not the right thing. > > For filesystems such as ext4 ->s_id is the name of the backing block device, > > so it is per filesysem instance unique. > > But this is not guaranteed. For UBIFS ->s_id is just "ubifs", always. > > So the names will clash. > > > > What name do you suggest using for UBIFS filesystems? The keyring name could > be > set by the filesystem via a fscrypt_operations callback if needed.
IMHO the BDI name should be used. > Note that the keyring name isn't particularly important, since the ioctls will > work regardless. But we might as well choose something logical, since the > keyring name will still show up in /proc/keys. I'm not done with reviewing your patches, but will it be possible to use keyctl? For the a unique name is helpful. :) Thanks, //richard
