On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 03:54:50PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-11-17 14:16, Seth Forshee wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 02:02:09PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>On 2015-11-17 12:55, Al Viro wrote: > >>>On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:25:51AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > >>> > >>>>Shortly after that I plan to follow with support for ext4. I've been > >>>>fuzzing ext4 for a while now and it has held up well, and I'm currently > >>>>working on hand-crafted attacks. Ted has commented privately (to others, > >>>>not to me personally) that he will fix bugs for such attacks, though I > >>>>haven't seen any public comments to that effect. > >>> > >>>_Static_ attacks, or change-image-under-mounted-fs attacks? > >>To properly protect against attacks on mounted filesystems, we'd > >>need some new concept of a userspace immutable file (that is, one > >>where nobody can write to it except the kernel, and only the kernel > >>can change it between regular access and this new state), and then > >>have the kernel set an image (or block device) to this state when a > >>filesystem is mounted from it (this introduces all kinds of other > >>issues too however, for example stuff that allows an online fsck on > >>the device will stop working, as will many un-deletion tools). > > > >Yeah, Serge and I were just tossing that idea around on irc. If we can > >make that work then it's probably the best solution. > > > > From a naive perspective it seems like all we really have to do is make > >the block device inode immutable to userspace when it is mounted. And > >the parent block device if it's a partition, which might be a bit > >troublesome. We'd have to ensure that writes couldn't happen via any fds > >already open when the device was mounted too. > > > >We'd need some cooperation from the loop driver too I suppose, to make > >sure the file backing the loop device is also immutable. > > > From a completeness perspective, you'd also need to hook into DM, > MD, and bcache to handle their backing devices. There's not much we > could do about iSCSI/ATAoE/NBD devices, and I think being able to But really no one would be able to mount any of those without intervention from a privileged user anyway. The same is true today of loop devices, but I have some patches to change that. > restrict stuff calling mount from a userns to only be able to use > FUSE would still be useful (FWIW, GRUB2 has a tool to use FUSE for > testing it's own filesystem drivers, which I use regularly when I > just need a read-only mount). Agreed, fuse alone is very useful, though there is a performance penalty. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
