linux-ext4 - Re: e2fsprogs: Richacl support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:16:15 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: e2fsprogs: Richacl support

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:03:29PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> 
> could the richacl feature flag please be added to e2fsprogs so that we
> won't end up with incompatible file systems?
> 
>   https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/e2fsprogs
> 
> Also, should this really be an incompatible feature flag? With a
> read-only compatibility flag, mounting a richacl filesystem on a
> kernel without richacl support would work but it's not safe --- it
> could grant unwanted access to files. (The same applies to the xfs
> support, etc.)

Richacl's are represented using just extended attributes, right?  So
why would this result in incompatible file systems?  For similar
reasons we never had a feature flag for Posix ACL's.

Suppose we mounted a file system with richacl's on a kernel that
didn't understand it, and we write to from that non-richacl kernel.
What's the worse that could happen?

					- Ted
					
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html