gocryptfs on macOS (with and without macFUSE)

Doing FUSE stuff on a Mac

April 26, 2024

In this post I’m taking gocryptfs as an example because that’s what I use to encrypt my offsite backups, but this can probably be applied to doing anything FUSE-related on a Mac.

gocryptfs on macOS

Using gocryptfs on macOS requires macFUSE. macFUSE (previously known as OSXFUSE (previously known as MacFUSE lol TIL)) is an awesome project that allows to mount FUSE filesystems on macOS.

All it takes is:

brew --cask install macfuse

# Do the reboot dance to allow the kernel extension (see "concerns" below)

brew install gromgit/fuse/gocryptfs-mac

# Not needed but might as well have SSHFS around too
brew install gromgit/fuse/sshfs-mac

Note: gocryptfs and SSHFS can’t be installed from Homebrew’s main registry anymore because they depend on macFUSE, which is not open-source.

This is why the above command installs from this repository, which hosts the Homebrew formulas that depend on FUSE that were dropped from Homebrew.

Concerns about macFUSE

Sadly, macFUSE is not open-source. But at least it’s been updated regularly for over 10 years, and keeps supporting the latest macOS versions, so as long as this stays the case, I don’t mind using it.

That said, depending on macFUSE for a process as critical as my offsite backups means that I will need to wait for it to support a new macOS version before I deem to upgrade. Because it’s a kernel extension, it’s not necessarily as easy to upgrade as other userland programs.

The other problem is that Apple deprecated kernel extensions in 2020 with macOS Catalina (although they still work up to this date on later versions). This is tracked in this macFUSE issue but at the time of writing, Apple doesn’t provide APIs that allow to implement macFUSE outside of a (now deprecated) kernel extension.

On top of that, going with the deprecation, Apple made it annoying to install kernel extensions on ARM Macs, by having to reboot in recovery and enabling “reduced security” mode (which is now required for kernel extensions).

While macFUSE works now, and have been working for many years after the original deprecation of kernel extensions by Apple, its future is still somewhat unclear.

In future versions, will macOS drop some the APIs that macFUSE depend on, without providing viable alternatives? Or will they entirely block kernel extensions? And in the event they do provide viable alternative APIs, how long will it take for macFUSE to support that new version?

Otherwise, is any of the alternatives like FUSE-T gonna be solid enough by then? And more importantly, is gocryptfs gonna work with those alternatives? Actually, it won’t, because right now go-fuse depends explicitly on macFUSE.

So, I wasn’t ready to commit to that setup without having a somewhat viable fallback.

gocryptfs on macOS without macFUSE

While FUSE, as we saw, is a bit of a challenge on macOS, it’s perfectly fine on Linux. gocryptfs and FUSE on Linux are not going anywhere.

Now, Lima is a pretty sweet way to run a Linux VM on macOS. Similarly to WSL on Windows, Lima can drop you in a Linux shell on your Mac, with transparent access to your files.

This means you can easily install gocryptfs in that Lima environment, and use it there. Assuming I want to get an encrypted mount of my home directory (~):

brew install lima

limactl start

lima sudo apt install gocryptfs

# Init in a temp dir because Lima can't write to the host filesystem
lima gocryptfs -init -reverse /tmp/lima

# From the host move the config file in the right place
mv /tmp/lima/.gocryptfs.reverse.conf ~

lima mkdir -p /tmp/encrypted
lima gocryptfs -reverse ~ /tmp/encrypted
lima rsync --archive /tmp/encrypted "$DESTINATION"

Note: Depending on how you connect to $DESTINATION, you may want to copy/link your SSH config and keys inside the Linux home of the VM user. For example:

lima ln -s ~/.ssh/{config,id_ed25519*} "$(lima sh -c 'echo $HOME')/.ssh"

Decrypting remote files

We can as easily do the opposite: use SSHFS to mount the remote encrypted directory locally, then use gocryptfs to decrypt it and access the files transparently.

lima sudo apt install sshfs

lima mkdir -p /tmp/encrypted /tmp/decrypted
sshfs -o idmap=user "$DESTINATION" /tmp/encrypted
gocryptfs /tmp/encrypted /tmp/decrypted

At that point we can browse the decrypted tree from the Lima shell, however we can’t access it from the host.

Accessing decrypted files from the host

If Lima can access files from the host, why can’t the host access files from Lima?

Well, it comes down again to the ability to us FUSE. In order to access host files, Lima starts a SSHFS server on the macOS host, and then mounts it via SSHFS (FUSE) inside the Linux VM. That’s fine, because Linux have absolutely no issue with FUSE stuff.

The other way around however, we would need FUSE on the macOS side in order to mount a SSHFS server running inside the VM. No bueno, because we’re doing all this jazz to avoid dealing with FUSE on macOS in the first place. 😬

So if we’re not gonna use FUSE, we need to fallback to another protocol that’s better supported on Mac, like WebDAV.

The best way I’ve found to do that is actually to use a simple, plain Go WebDAV server such as this one.

Just point the server to serve the decrypted mount point from earlier.

We also need to edit the Lima VM config in ~/.lima/default/lima.yaml to forward the port the WebDAV server is listening on, so we can access it from the host system, such as:

  - guestPort: 1234

Then on the macOS side we can do:

mkdir -p mountpoint
mount_webdav http://localhost:1234 mountpoint

Before going with the custom Go solution, I’ve tried phởdav, because unlike most WebDAV servers, it doesn’t require any kind of hairy configuration, and can be spawned in a ad hoc way that just works. But the performance wasn’t as good as the Go version. I’ve also tried NFS, but that was much even slower.

That said, don’t get your hopes too high. Even with the Go version, the performance wasn’t super fast, but I believe it’s mainly because of being run over SSHFS, so your mileage may vary depending on the network bandwidth you have with your offsite server. But as a fallback, I’ll call it good enough anyway.

Want to leave a comment?

Join the discussion on Twitter or send me an email! 💌
This post helped you? Buy me a coffee! 🍻