commit 3ceb6543e9cf6ed87cc1fbc6f23ca2db903564cd upstream.

There isn't really any valid reason to use __FSCRYPT_MODE_MAX or
FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAGS_VALID in a userspace program.  These constants are
only meant to be used by the kernel internally, and they are defined in
the UAPI header next to the mode numbers and flags only so that kernel
developers don't forget to update them when adding new modes or flags.

In https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201005074133.1958633-2-satyat@google.com
there was an example of someone wanting to use __FSCRYPT_MODE_MAX in a
user program, and it was wrong because the program would have broken if
__FSCRYPT_MODE_MAX were ever increased.  So having this definition
available is harmful.  FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAGS_VALID has the same problem.

So, remove these definitions from the UAPI header.  Replace
FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAGS_VALID with just listing the valid flags explicitly
in the one kernel function that needs it.  Move __FSCRYPT_MODE_MAX to
fscrypt_private.h, remove the double underscores (which were only
present to discourage use by userspace), and add a BUILD_BUG_ON() and
comments to (hopefully) ensure it is kept in sync.

Keep the old name FS_POLICY_FLAGS_VALID, since it's been around for
longer and there's a greater chance that removing it would break source
compatibility with some program.  Indeed, mtd-utils is using it in
an #ifdef, and removing it would introduce compiler warnings (about
FS_POLICY_FLAGS_PAD_* being redefined) into the mtd-utils build.
However, reduce its value to 0x07 so that it only includes the flags
with old names (the ones present before Linux 5.4), and try to make it
clear that it's now "frozen" and no new flags should be added to it.

Fixes: 2336d0deb2d4 ("fscrypt: use FSCRYPT_ prefix for uapi constants")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.4+
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201024005132.495952-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 159e1de201b6fca10bfec50405a3b53a561096a8 upstream.

It's possible to create a duplicate filename in an encrypted directory
by creating a file concurrently with adding the encryption key.

Specifically, sys_open(O_CREAT) (or sys_mkdir(), sys_mknod(), or
sys_symlink()) can lookup the target filename while the directory's
encryption key hasn't been added yet, resulting in a negative no-key
dentry.  The VFS then calls ->create() (or ->mkdir(), ->mknod(), or
->symlink()) because the dentry is negative.  Normally, ->create() would
return -ENOKEY due to the directory's key being unavailable.  However,
if the key was added between the dentry lookup and ->create(), then the
filesystem will go ahead and try to create the file.

If the target filename happens to already exist as a normal name (not a
no-key name), a duplicate filename may be added to the directory.

In order to fix this, we need to fix the filesystems to prevent
->create(), ->mkdir(), ->mknod(), and ->symlink() on no-key names.
(->rename() and ->link() need it too, but those are already handled
correctly by fscrypt_prepare_rename() and fscrypt_prepare_link().)

In preparation for this, add a helper function fscrypt_is_nokey_name()
that filesystems can use to do this check.  Use this helper function for
the existing checks that fs/crypto/ does for rename and link.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201118075609.120337-2-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 2b4eae95c7361e0a147b838715c8baa1380a428f upstream.

After FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY removes a key, it syncs the
filesystem and tries to get and put all inodes that were unlocked by the
key so that unused inodes get evicted via fscrypt_drop_inode().
Normally, the inodes are all clean due to the sync.

However, after the filesystem is sync'ed, userspace can modify and close
one of the files.  (Userspace is *supposed* to close the files before
removing the key.  But it doesn't always happen, and the kernel can't
assume it.)  This causes the inode to be dirtied and have i_count == 0.
Then, fscrypt_drop_inode() failed to consider this case and indicated
that the inode can be dropped, causing the write to be lost.

On f2fs, other problems such as a filesystem freeze could occur due to
the inode being freed while still on f2fs's dirty inode list.

Fix this bug by making fscrypt_drop_inode() only drop clean inodes.

I've written an xfstest which detects this bug on ext4, f2fs, and ubifs.

Fixes: b1c0ec3599f4 ("fscrypt: add FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.4+
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200305084138.653498-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 13a10da94615d81087e718517794f2868a8b3fab upstream.

When an encryption key can't be fully removed due to file(s) protected
by it still being in-use, we shouldn't really print the path to one of
these files to the kernel log, since parts of this path are likely to be
encrypted on-disk, and (depending on how the system is set up) the
confidentiality of this path might be lost by printing it to the log.

This is a trade-off: a single file path often doesn't matter at all,
especially if it's a directory; the kernel log might still be protected
in some way; and I had originally hoped that any "inode(s) still busy"
bugs (which are security weaknesses in their own right) would be quickly
fixed and that to do so it would be super helpful to always know the
file path and not have to run 'find dir -inum $inum' after the fact.

But in practice, these bugs can be hard to fix (e.g. due to asynchronous
process killing that is difficult to eliminate, for performance
reasons), and also not tied to specific files, so knowing a file path
doesn't necessarily help.

So to be safe, for now let's just show the inode number, not the path.
If someone really wants to know a path they can use 'find -inum'.

Fixes: b1c0ec3599f4 ("fscrypt: add FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.4+
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200120060732.390362-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

By looking up the master keys in a filesystem-level keyring rather than
in the calling processes' key hierarchy, it becomes possible for a user
to set an encryption policy which refers to some key they don't actually
know, then encrypt their files using that key.  Cryptographically this
isn't much of a problem, but the semantics of this would be a bit weird.
Thus, enforce that a v2 encryption policy can only be set if the user
has previously added the key, or has capable(CAP_FOWNER).

We tolerate that this problem will continue to exist for v1 encryption
policies, however; there is no way around that.

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

Add a root-only variant of the FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl which
removes all users' claims of the key, not just the current user's claim.
I.e., it always removes the key itself, no matter how many users have
added it.

This is useful for forcing a directory to be locked, without having to
figure out which user ID(s) the key was added under.  This is planned to
be used by a command like 'sudo fscrypt lock DIR --all-users' in the
fscrypt userspace tool (http://github.com/google/fscrypt).

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

Allow the FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY and FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY
ioctls to be used by non-root users to add and remove encryption keys
from the filesystem-level crypto keyrings, subject to limitations.

Motivation: while privileged fscrypt key management is sufficient for
some users (e.g. Android and Chromium OS, where a privileged process
manages all keys), the old API by design also allows non-root users to
set up and use encrypted directories, and we don't want to regress on
that.  Especially, we don't want to force users to continue using the
old API, running into the visibility mismatch between files and keyrings
and being unable to "lock" encrypted directories.

Intuitively, the ioctls have to be privileged since they manipulate
filesystem-level state.  However, it's actually safe to make them
unprivileged if we very carefully enforce some specific limitations.

First, each key must be identified by a cryptographic hash so that a
user can't add the wrong key for another user's files.  For v2
encryption policies, we use the key_identifier for this.  v1 policies
don't have this, so managing keys for them remains privileged.

Second, each key a user adds is charged to their quota for the keyrings
service.  Thus, a user can't exhaust memory by adding a huge number of
keys.  By default each non-root user is allowed up to 200 keys; this can
be changed using the existing sysctl 'kernel.keys.maxkeys'.

Third, if multiple users add the same key, we keep track of those users
of the key (of which there remains a single copy), and won't really
remove the key, i.e. "lock" the encrypted files, until all those users
have removed it.  This prevents denial of service attacks that would be
possible under simpler schemes, such allowing the first user who added a
key to remove it -- since that could be a malicious user who has
compromised the key.  Of course, encryption keys should be kept secret,
but the idea is that using encryption should never be *less* secure than
not using encryption, even if your key was compromised.

We tolerate that a user will be unable to really remove a key, i.e.
unable to "lock" their encrypted files, if another user has added the
same key.  But in a sense, this is actually a good thing because it will
avoid providing a false notion of security where a key appears to have
been removed when actually it's still in memory, available to any
attacker who compromises the operating system kernel.

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

Add a new fscrypt policy version, "v2".  It has the following changes
from the original policy version, which we call "v1" (*):

- Master keys (the user-provided encryption keys) are only ever used as
  input to HKDF-SHA512.  This is more flexible and less error-prone, and
  it avoids the quirks and limitations of the AES-128-ECB based KDF.
  Three classes of cryptographically isolated subkeys are defined:

    - Per-file keys, like used in v1 policies except for the new KDF.

    - Per-mode keys.  These implement the semantics of the DIRECT_KEY
      flag, which for v1 policies made the master key be used directly.
      These are also planned to be used for inline encryption when
      support for it is added.

    - Key identifiers (see below).

- Each master key is identified by a 16-byte master_key_identifier,
  which is derived from the key itself using HKDF-SHA512.  This prevents
  users from associating the wrong key with an encrypted file or
  directory.  This was easily possible with v1 policies, which
  identified the key by an arbitrary 8-byte master_key_descriptor.

- The key must be provided in the filesystem-level keyring, not in a
  process-subscribed keyring.

The following UAPI additions are made:

- The existing ioctl FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY can now be passed a
  fscrypt_policy_v2 to set a v2 encryption policy.  It's disambiguated
  from fscrypt_policy/fscrypt_policy_v1 by the version code prefix.

- A new ioctl FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY_EX is added.  It allows
  getting the v1 or v2 encryption policy of an encrypted file or
  directory.  The existing FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY ioctl could not
  be used because it did not have a way for userspace to indicate which
  policy structure is expected.  The new ioctl includes a size field, so
  it is extensible to future fscrypt policy versions.

- The ioctls FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY, FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY,
  and FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_KEY_STATUS now support managing keys for v2
  encryption policies.  Such keys are kept logically separate from keys
  for v1 encryption policies, and are identified by 'identifier' rather
  than by 'descriptor'.  The 'identifier' need not be provided when
  adding a key, since the kernel will calculate it anyway.

This patch temporarily keeps adding/removing v2 policy keys behind the
same permission check done for adding/removing v1 policy keys:
capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN).  However, the next patch will carefully take
advantage of the cryptographically secure master_key_identifier to allow
non-root users to add/remove v2 policy keys, thus providing a full
replacement for v1 policies.

(*) Actually, in the API fscrypt_policy::version is 0 while on-disk
    fscrypt_context::format is 1.  But I believe it makes the most sense
    to advance both to '2' to have them be in sync, and to consider the
    numbering to start at 1 except for the API quirk.

Reviewed-by: Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
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>

Add a new fscrypt ioctl, FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_KEY_STATUS.  Given a key
specified by 'struct fscrypt_key_specifier' (the same way a key is
specified for the other fscrypt key management ioctls), it returns
status information in a 'struct fscrypt_get_key_status_arg'.

The main motivation for this is that applications need to be able to
check whether an encrypted directory is "unlocked" or not, so that they
can add the key if it is not, and avoid adding the key (which may
involve prompting the user for a passphrase) if it already is.

It's possible to use some workarounds such as checking whether opening a
regular file fails with ENOKEY, or checking whether the filenames "look
like gibberish" or not.  However, no workaround is usable in all cases.

Like the other key management ioctls, the keyrings syscalls may seem at
first to be a good fit for this.  Unfortunately, they are not.  Even if
we exposed the keyring ID of the ->s_master_keys keyring and gave
everyone Search permission on it (note: currently the keyrings
permission system would also allow everyone to "invalidate" the keyring
too), the fscrypt keys have an additional state that doesn't map cleanly
to the keyrings API: the secret can be removed, but we can be still
tracking the files that were using the key, and the removal can be
re-attempted or the secret added again.

After later patches, some applications will also need a way to determine
whether a key was added by the current user vs. by some other user.
Reserved fields are included in fscrypt_get_key_status_arg for this and
other future extensions.

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>