Re: [PATCH 3/5] ovl: make redirect/metacopy rejection consistent

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 13:01, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looking closer at ovl_maybe_validate_verity(), it's actually
> worse - if you create an upper without metacopy above
> a lower with metacopy, ovl_validate_verity() will only check
> the metacopy xattr on metapath, which is the uppermost
> and find no md5digest, so create an upper above a metacopy
> lower is a way to avert verity check.
>
> So I think lookup code needs to disallow finding metacopy
> in middle layer and need to enforce that also when upper is found
> via index.

So I think the next patch does this: only allow following a metacopy
redirect from lower to data.

It's confusing to call this metacopy, as no copy is performed.  We
could call it data-redirect.  Mixing data-redirect with real meta-copy
is of dubious value, and we might be better to disable it even in the
privileged scenario.

Giuseppe, Alexander, AFAICS the composefs use case employs
data-redirect only and not metacopy, right?

Thanks,
Miklos




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux