linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][V2] ovl: fix lookup failure on multi lower squashfs

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: <CAJfpegvKnWR6_aPFwjcP8E7CRPesHPc3Svk=n9=39CnM=Mjfvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 16:34:42 +0100
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][V2] ovl: fix lookup failure on multi lower squashfs

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:37 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:

> What Colin has now reported brings to light the fact that
> decoding lower file handles was also required for making inode
> numbers persistent.
>
> So the bad_uuid condition is required for all of the above, not
> just for decoding origin.
>
> > Can we do a message that makes
> > that somewhat more clearer?
> >
>
> What about the logs:
>
>                 pr_warn("overlayfs: upper fs does not support xattr,
> falling back to index=off and metacopy=off.\n");
>                 pr_warn("overlayfs: upper fs does not support file
> handles, falling back to index=off.\n");
>                 pr_warn("overlayfs: fs on '%s' does not support file
> handles, falling back to index=off,nfs_export=off.\n",
>
> Should we also change them to reflect the fact the decoding origin
> is not supported???
>
> Seems like a lot of hassle that will end up writing too much information
> that most people won't understand.
>
> IIRC, we also do not guaranty persistent inode numbers for hardlinks
> when index=off.
>
> As for the change in question (falling back => enforcing), if that bothers you,
> we can get rid of this change by testing emitting the print only if
> (ofs->config.nfs_export || ofs->config.index).

That makes sense.

It would also make sense to have a section about inode number
persistence in the documentation.

Thanks,
Miklos