linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] fscrypt: Have filesystems handle their d

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: <CA+PiJmQ8-Qxu7yNWBvRLAeGa31PT5=hsYCcoW9QKsKnJQXqnMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Nov 2020 22:20:37 -0800
From:   Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] fscrypt: Have filesystems handle their d_ops

>
> This change has the side-effect of removing the capability of the root
> directory from being case-insensitive.  It is not a backward
> incompatible change because there is no way to make the root directory
> CI at the moment (it is never empty). But this restriction seems
> artificial. Is there a real reason to prevent the root inode from being
> case-insensitive?

> I don't have a use case where I need a root directory to be CI.  In
> fact, when I first implemented CI, I did want to block the root directory
> from being made CI, just to prevent people from doing "chattr +F /" and
> complaining afterwards when /usr/lib breaks.
>
> My concern with the curent patch was whether this side-effect was
> considered, but I'm happy with either semantics.
>
> --
> Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

That's just from the lost+found directory right? If you remove it you
can still change it, and then add the lost+found directory back. Isn't
that how it works currently? I definitely didn't intend to change any
behavior around non-encrypted casefolding there.

I should look at what fsck does if you do that and have a LoSt+fOuNd folder...


-Daniel Rosenberg