[rmunn]

The "never create your own encryption" advice is specifically because crypto is full of subtle ways to get it wrong, which you will NOT catch on your own. It's a special case of "never use encryption that hasn't been poked at for years by hundreds of crypto specialists" — because any encryption you create yourself would fail that test.

Filesystems, as complex as they are, aren't full of traps like encryption is. Still plenty of subtle traps, don't get me wrong: you have to be prepared for all kinds of edge cases like the power failing at exactly the wrong moment, hardware going flaky and yet you have to somehow retrieve the data since it's probably the only copy of someone's TPS report, that sort of thing. But at least you don't have millions of highly-motivated people deliberately trying to break your filesystem, the way you would if you rolled your own encryption.

[smittywerben]

That matches what I've heard, so I think you stated the trope perfectly. Your response is a good point about the actual difficulty. Perhaps I'm confused about what 'rolling your own encryption' means at an abstraction level. I just think it's weird that it comes up in an OS thread. Anyone who is serious about encryption is serious about the encryption hardware. At a higher level, WolfSSL limits the ciphers to a small, modern suite, which reduces the attack surface. Replacing OpenSSL is a fool's errand, I think; it's clearly the perfect implementation of OpenSSL, and it's a perfect security scapegoat. However, this is still about the x86 OS topic. Perhaps it's some TPM politics, similar to the decade-old stigma surrounding ZFS. Maybe I'm just questioning the limits of the x86 platform on any new operating system. Anyway, thanks for the response.

[ants_everywhere]

> I just think it's weird that it comes up in an OS thread

The only connection is that writing custom encryption is a thing that smart people like to try their hand at, but its success is defined by the long tail of failure cases not by the cleverness of the happy path. I agree 100% with what rmunn said.

As I said I'm not a filesystem person, but my sense is that filesystem difficulty is also dominated by the long tail of failure cases and for similar reasons. Failure in encryption means you lose control of your data, failure in filesystems mean you lose your data (or maybe you lose liveness/performance) [0]

But really I just meant it in the sense that it's a journey people often go down underestimating just how long it takes. So it's a sort of trap from the project management perspective.

> I'm confused about what 'rolling your own encryption' means at an abstraction level

It cuts through many abstractions. You should definitely not define your own crypto primitives. You also shouldn't define your own login flow. You shouldn't design a custom JWT system, etc. You probably shouldn't write your own crypto library unless there's not one in your language, in which case you should probably be wrapping a trusted library in C or C++, etc. The higher you go in abstraction, the more it's okay to design an alternative. But any abstraction can introduce a weakness so the risk is always there.

[0] Ordinarily you still have backups, which makes file system failures potentially less final than encryption failures. But what if the filesystem holding your backup root keys fails. Then the encryption wasn't a failure but you've potentially crypto shredded your entire infrastructure.

[smittywerben]

> "The higher you go in abstraction, the more it's okay to design an alternative."

What choice of paint you throw into the tarpit makes zero difference.