linux-kernel - Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt

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

Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:00:28 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
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

Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, 13:58:11 CET schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> 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?

The use case is that you can delete these files if the DAC/MAC permissions allow it.
Just like on NTFS. If a user encrypts files, the admin cannot read them but can
remove them if the user is gone or loses the key.

Thanks,
//richard