[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvrG4LfnuC62JNtdXpCf4vb+aEiDre5YCxe7xUSQP8yjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:58:11 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:47 PM Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, 13:36:02 CET schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> > I don't get it. Does fscrypt try to check permissions via
> > ->d_revalidate? Why is it not doing that via ->permission()?
>
> Please let me explain. Suppose we have a fscrypto directory /mnt and
> I *don't* have the key.
>
> When reading the directory contents of /mnt will return an encrypted filename.
> e.g.
> # ls /mnt
> +mcQ46ne5Y8U6JMV9Wdq2C
Why does showing the encrypted contents make any sense? It could just
return -EPERM on all operations?
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists