lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:06:16PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:16:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Actually, the original use was for ChromeOS, but the primary
> > assumption is that keying is per user (or profile), and that users are
> > mutually distrustful. So when Alice logs out of the system, her keys
> > will be invalidated and removed from the kernel. We can (and do) try
> > to flush cache entries via "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" on
> > logout. However, this does not guarantee that all dcache entries will
> > be removed --- a dcache entry can be pinned due to an open file, a
> > process's current working directory, a bind mount, etc.
> >
> > The other issue is negative dentries; if you try open a file in an
> > encrypted file, the file system won't even *know* whether or not a
> > file exists, since the directory entries are encrypted; hence, there
> > may be some negative dentries that need to be invalidated.
> >
> > So a fundamental assumption with fscrypt is that keys will be added
> > and removed, and that when this happens, dentries will need to be
> > invalidated. This is going to surprise overlayfs, so if overlayfs is
> > going to support fscrypt it *has* to be aware of the fact that this
> > can happen. It's not even clear what the proper security semantics
> > should be; *especially* if the upper and lower directories aren't
> > similarly protected using the same fscrypt encryption key. Suppose
> > the lower directory is encrypted, and the upper is not. Now on a copy
> > up operation, the previously encrypted file, which might contain
> > credit card numbers, medical records, or other things that would cause
> > a GDPR regulator to have a freak out attack, would *poof* become
> > decrypted.
>
> Just to make sure - you do realize that ban on multiple dentries refering
> to the same directory inode is *NOT* conditional upon those dentries being
> hashed, right?

Isn't this handled by d_splice_alias() already, by moving the old dentry to the
new name?

- Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-13 17:45    [W:0.153 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site