Message-ID: <YH7rbBTKAdZgzy9A@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:55:40 -0400
From:   Leah Rumancik <leah.rumancik@...il.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ext4: wipe filename upon file deletion

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 09:59:06PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:53:52PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 04:21:00PM +0000, Leah Rumancik wrote:
> > > Upon file deletion, zero out all fields in ext4_dir_entry2 besides inode
> > > and rec_len. In case sensitive data is stored in filenames, this ensures
> > > no potentially sensitive data is left in the directory entry upon deletion.
> > > Also, wipe these fields upon moving a directory entry during the conversion
> > > to an htree and when splitting htree nodes.
> > 
> > This should include more explanation about why this is useful, and what its
> > limitations are (e.g. how do the properties of the storage device affect whether
> > the filename is *really* deleted)...
> 
> Well, it might be useful to talk about how this is not a complete
> solution on its own (acknowledge that more changes to make sure
> filenames aren't leaked in the journal will be forthcoming).
> 
> However, there is a limit to how much we can put in a commit
> description, and I'd argue that the people for whom caveats about
> flash devices having old copies of directory blocks which could be
> extracted by a nation-state intelligence angency, etc., are not likely
> going to be the people reading the git commit description.  :-)  That's
> the sort of thing that is best placed in a presentation given at a
> conference, or in a white paper, or in LWN article.
> 
> Commit descriptions are targetted at developers, so a note that "more
> commits to follow" would be appropriate.

I'll add a bit more to the description to help clarify some more.

> 
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/namei.c b/fs/ext4/namei.c
> > > index 883e2a7cd4ab..df7809a4821f 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/namei.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/namei.c
> > > @@ -1778,6 +1778,11 @@ dx_move_dirents(char *from, char *to, struct dx_map_entry *map, int count,
> > >  		((struct ext4_dir_entry_2 *) to)->rec_len =
> > >  				ext4_rec_len_to_disk(rec_len, blocksize);
> > >  		de->inode = 0;
> > > +
> > > +		/* wipe name_len through and name field */
> > > +		memset(&de->name_len, 0, ext4_rec_len_from_disk(de->rec_len,
> > > +						blocksize) - 6);
> > > +
> 
> This change in dx_move_dirents() does work, but I wonder if it would
> have been better / more efficient to simply zero out the last
> directory entry in dx_pack_dirents() after it is done packing the
> directory entries in the original directory block?
> 
> 

Hmm, I was basing it on the fact that it felt more logical to put it with
the code that actually moves the entry in case move_dirents() is ever called
without a packing after. But I see that move_dirents() and pack_dirents()
are each only called once in do_split() so perhaps moving it to
pack_dirents() would be best.

> > The comment is confusing.  IMO it would make more sense to mention what is *not*
> > being zeroed:
> > 
> > 	/* wipe the dir_entry excluding the rec_len field */
> 
> Or maybe, "wipe everything in the directory entry after the rec_len
> field".

Thanks for the suggestion, I was having a hard time coming up with something
understandable.

> 
> > > @@ -2492,6 +2498,11 @@ int ext4_generic_delete_entry(struct inode *dir,
> > >  			else
> > >  				de->inode = 0;
> > >  			inode_inc_iversion(dir);
> > > +
> > > +			/* wipe name_len through name field */
> > > +			memset(&de->name_len, 0,
> > > +				ext4_rec_len_from_disk(de->rec_len, blocksize) - 6);
> > > +
> > >  			return 0;
> > 
> > And maybe here too, although here why is the condition for setting the inode to
> > 0 not the same as the condition for zeroing the other fields?
> 
> I'd actually suggest wiping the directory entry *before* the "if
> (pde)" statement, and yeah, it's probably best to zap the de->inode
> unconditionally.
> 
> What is going on is if there is a previoud directory entry ("if (pde)
> ...) the the original code wasn't changing the directory entry at all,
> including zero'ing the inode field, but instead simply expanding the
> previous directory entry's rec_len to include the directory entry
> being deleted.  So in the original code, where the goal is to make
> life as easy as possible for undelete programs, skipping "de->inode =
> 0" when it was unnecessary was a good thing.
> 
> But given that the new design goal of the code is, "to heck with
> undelete programs, we want to shred anything that's no longer needed",
> clearing the inode number is fine.
> 
> In fact, what we could actually do is in the if (pde) case, we can zap
> the entire directory entry, include de->rec_len.  The advantage of
> doing that is it becomes a lot easier to verify that the wiping code
> is working correctly.  We can simply check to make sure everything in
> every directory entry after the end of the name (e.g., everything between
> &de->name[de->name_pen) and ((char *) de) + de->rec_len) MUST be zero.
> 

Yes this all makes sense, I'll update it. I'll also add a test similar to what
you described in the fstest I'm working on.

> > Also, maybe use offsetof(struct ext4_dir_entry_2, name_len) instead of '6'...
> 
> Sure.  Someone will still need to look at the definition of struct
> ext4_dir_entry_2 to understand the structure layout, but offsetof(..)
> is going to be a bit more understandable than a magic constant of '6'.
> 

Sounds good to me.

>    	       	     	  		      - Ted
> 

Thanks for the comments,
Leah

Powered by blists - more mailing lists