Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt

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


On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 08:51 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Hi James,
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 08:36:34AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 11:16 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > So before we talk about how to make things work from a technical
> > > perspective, we should consider what the use case happens to be,
> > > and what are the security requirements.  *Why* are we trying to
> > > use the combination of overlayfs and fscrypt, and what are the
> > > security properties we are trying to provide to someone who is
> > > relying on this combination?
> > 
> > I can give one: encrypted containers:
> > 
> >
> > 
> > The current proposal imagines that the key would be delivered to
> > the physical node and the physical node containerd would decrypt
> > all the layers before handing them off to to the kubelet.  However,
> > one could imagine a slightly more secure use case where the layers
> > were constructed as an encrypted filesystem tar and so the key
> > would go into the kernel and the layers would be constructed with
> > encryption in place using fscrypt.
> > 
> > Most of the desired security properties are in image at rest but
> > one can imagine that the running image wants some protection
> > against containment breaches by other tenants and using fscrypt
> > could provide that.
> > 
> 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?

>   fscrypt is orthogonal to OS-level access control (UNIX mode bits,
> ACLs, SELinux, etc.), which can and should be used alongside
> fscrypt.  fscrypt is a storage encryption mechanism, not an OS-level
> access control mechanism.

I was assuming in the multi-user case that if you don't own the keyring
you can't see the files. I suppose absent that it boils down to a
possible way to do the layering then as an fscrypt image rather than
tar then encrypt.


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

  Powered by Linux