linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] f2fs: support access control via key management

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20160321153938.GB27230@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:39:38 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: support access control via key management

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:37:25AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> I agree that I must follow FS convention here.
> But, in order to make this clear out, could you please elaborate why this is not
> allowed?
> 
> I wrote this patch totally based on per-file encryption in which users cannot
> access their files if they have no right key.
> The only difference is that this controls user access with a key only, neither
> encrypting file data nor dentries.
> 
> This was initiated by UX in android letting nobody be able to access the files
> that owner wants to protect by passcode or fingerprint.
> 
> Does it make no sense to support this by filesystems?

I don't think it does.  But if you want to argue for it you should

 a) support it in the VFS
 b) document the exact semantics
 c) ensure linux-man and linux-api are on the Cc list.