From nobody Wed Aug 23 07:32:01 2023 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4RVybJ35TVz4rF35 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 07:32:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4RVybG1gZ2z4YBL for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 07:32:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=netfence.it header.s=202304 header.b=WcnJkSIF; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it Received: from [10.1.2.18] (alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.17.2/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 37N7W1Ub010006 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 09:32:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfence.it; s=202304; t=1692775922; bh=i6C19o9/V2SRV6XeKYl3gq/l55rVmxanbvJ5fIxTdpY=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=WcnJkSIFbzdQxNrZDjgvZtKrBGQRaBV96ScD3fNjYW/5ufRltr/AnyJS1UOQeqjFe Yz58/kTcYMpMeefjlM6smJiLSUgSwLJnxfynCeAunDN+Ze4DF9kdjPSlMqFRimwnwc WZfllJJ2N3jWSx7+42pVcayyYGm4xAxKw5XQJAHE= X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18] claimed to be [10.1.2.18] Message-ID: <0e7d2657-f857-01a8-f764-33b9c62c11f1@netfence.it> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 09:32:01 +0200 List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Subject: Re: Is ZFS native encryption safe to use? Content-Language: en-US To: questions@freebsd.org References: From: Andrea Venturoli In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.80 / 15.00]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW_WITH_FAILURES(-0.50)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(0.00)[netfence.it,none]; R_DKIM_REJECT(0.00)[netfence.it:s=202304]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[netfence.it:-]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4RVybG1gZ2z4YBL On 8/23/23 03:02, iio7@tutanota.com wrote: Hello. Just my 2c... > There seems to be a bit of open (and rather old) ZFS native encryption > bugs which still haven't been fixed and it doesn't look like it is > something that is being working on. > > Last night I was going to move some important files from an unencrypted > dataset to a new encrypted (ZFS native) one, but then got my doubts > about doing that (looking at all the different open GitHub issues on > OpenZFS). Could you please provide links to these discussions/bugs? > What is the general experience running with ZFS native encryption on > FreeBSD? I'm using it on three machines with no issues so far. > Is it better to use GELI for the whole pool instead? If possible, I prefer GELI. However, I want to be able to let the machine boot without having to type a passphrase, SSH in and activate the encrypted partitions/dataset. In the past I used to have two partitions (a "plain" one for a non encrypted pool and a GELI one for the encypted pool); however this fixes the sizes of the two pools and leads to some hassle when one might get full while the other still has space; so I'm moving to a single ZFS pool with some encrypted datasets. bye av.