On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:10:22PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: [..] > >> >> 1. Considering Miklos' commit > >> >> 438c84c2f0c7 ovl: don't follow redirects if redirect_dir=off > >> >> It is probably not a good idea to allow lookup of metacopy unless > >> >> metacopy=on. Is that already the behavior in V9? > >> > > >> > Hi Amir, > >> > > >> > Hmm.., no, that's not the behavior in V9. Remember, we wanted to follow > >> > metacopy origin even if metacopy=off. That way a user can mount a > >> > overlayfs with metacopy=off (which was previously mounted as metacopy=on) > >> > and not be broken. > >> > > >> > >> User can also mount with redirect_dir=nofollow after previously mounting with > >> redirect_dir=on. It's the exact same thing. > >> > >> > If we follow metacopy only if metacopy=on, then we really need some > >> > mechanism which can atleast warn user that this overlay mount was > >> > mounted with metacopy=on in the past and expect some unexpected results > >> > if mounted with metacopy=off. > >> > > >> > Has there been any agreement on what mechanism to use to remember what > >> > features have been turned on existing overlay mount. > >> > > >> > >> There is no agreement, but there is code in upstream that "allows" the user > >> to make the same with redirect_dir. The consequences of this configuration is > >> -EPERM on lookup. > >> You actually have to allow this configuration for security reasons, the only > >> question is whether metacopy will have 3 modes (off/follow/on) or just on/off > >> where off implies nofollow. > > > > Hi Miklos and Amir, > > > > Thinking more about security implications of this. > > > > Can a user hand craft ORIGIN xattr? I mean, if inode number of lower file > > is known, can a user come up with file handle of lower and put in ORIGIN > > XATTR? > > Yes, its quite easy if you know the underlying fs. > For example for ext4, you don't even need to guess the generation number, > you can provide 0 generation and ext4 treats it as ANY. > > > > > If yes, this sounds like a security concern. Then I as a user can simply > > hand craft an upper file and point to any file in lower and put associated > > ORIGIN and METACOPY xattr on upper and next time mount is done with > > metacopy=on, I can get access to any lower file? > > > > In fact, not just metacopy, if ORIGIN can be handcrafted, then we will have > > to be very careful on when ORIGIN should be followed otherwise an > > handcrafted upper can lead to unexpected security issues. (This is > > assuming that we will use ORIGIN for more and more features). > > > > Am I overthinking this? > > > > It is exactly as you wrote. Not any less or any more of a security concern > than a hand crafted redirect_dir. The only difference is that without > metacopy=on and without redirect_dir=origin, the only implication of > following an hand crafted origin would be to get a different st_dev/st_ino > and for example, to fake that 2 files/dirs are the same while one is actually > a rootkit/malware. So not that easy to exploit in current upstream. Right. Currently we seem to be using origin only for st_dev/st_ino so no big impact. "metadata only copyup" is first feature which will make data of lower file available using ORIGIN. So anymore features we add using ORIGIN, we will have to be extra careful. Atleast make it conditional on a mount option and document that using this mount option on untrusted layer source can lead to privilege escalation. Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
