[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3369831.hnip8tpcNh@blindfold>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:30:03 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>, david@...ma-star.at
Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, 16:16:33 CET schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> So before we talk about how to make things work from a technical
> perspective, we should consider what the use case happens to be, and
> what are the security requirements. *Why* are we trying to use the
> combination of overlayfs and fscrypt, and what are the security
> properties we are trying to provide to someone who is relying on this
> combination?
Well, as stated, on (deeply) embedded systems overlayfs is common.
You have a lowerdir with read-only files and an read-write upper dir.
Of course both lower and upper directory need to be encrypted.
In my case ubifs+fscrypt, sometimes also combined with an encrypted+authenticated
squashfs.
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists