[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2287057.GpIlh1E3ca@blindfold>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:24:10 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
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>
Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, 17:13:52 CET schrieb James Bottomley:
> > What do you mean by "containment breaches by other tenants"? Note
> > that while the key is added, fscrypt doesn't prevent access to the
> > encrypted files.
>
> You mean it's not multiuser safe? Even if user a owns the key they add
> user b can still see the decrypted contents?
If user a reads the file before, yes. Then user b sees it because the contents
got cached.
That's why you need still make sure that your access control is sane.
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists