> > > > > > > > I would ditch the original proposal in favor of this 2-line patch shown here: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/a95f62ed-8b8a-38e5-e468-ecbde3b221af@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m3bd047c6e5c8200df1d273c0ad551c645dd43232 > > We should cool it with the quick hacks to fix things. :) > Yeah. It might fix this specific testcase, but I think the way it uses the i_version is "gameable" in other situations. Then again, I don't know a lot about IMA in this regard. When is it expected to remeasure? If it's only expected to remeasure on a close(), then that's one thing. That would be a weird design though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I think I get it. IMA is trying to use the i_version from the > > > overlayfs inode. > > > > > > I suspect that the real problem here is that IMA is just doing a bare > > > inode_query_iversion. Really, we ought to make IMA call > > > vfs_getattr_nosec (or something like it) to query the getattr routine in > > > the upper layer. Then overlayfs could just propagate the results from > > > the upper layer in its response. > > > > > > That sort of design may also eventually help IMA work properly with more > > > exotic filesystems, like NFS or Ceph. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe something like this? It builds for me but I haven't tested it. It > > looks like overlayfs already should report the upper layer's i_version > > in getattr, though I haven't tested that either: > > > > -----------------------8<--------------------------- > > > > [PATCH] IMA: use vfs_getattr_nosec to get the i_version > > > > IMA currently accesses the i_version out of the inode directly when it > > does a measurement. This is fine for most simple filesystems, but can be > > problematic with more complex setups (e.g. overlayfs). > > > > Make IMA instead call vfs_getattr_nosec to get this info. This allows > > the filesystem to determine whether and how to report the i_version, and > > should allow IMA to work properly with a broader class of filesystems in > > the future. > > > > Reported-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > So, I think we want both; we want the ovl_copyattr() and the > vfs_getattr_nosec() change: > > (1) overlayfs should copy up the inode version in ovl_copyattr(). That > is in line what we do with all other inode attributes. IOW, the > overlayfs inode's i_version counter should aim to mirror the > relevant layer's i_version counter. I wouldn't know why that > shouldn't be the case. Asking the other way around there doesn't > seem to be any use for overlayfs inodes to have an i_version that > isn't just mirroring the relevant layer's i_version. It's less than ideal to do this IMO, particularly with an IS_I_VERSION inode. You can't just copy up the value from the upper. You'll need to call inode_query_iversion(upper_inode), which will flag the upper inode for a logged i_version update on the next write. IOW, this could create some (probably minor) metadata write amplification in the upper layer inode with IS_I_VERSION inodes. > (2) Jeff's changes for ima to make it rely on vfs_getattr_nosec(). > Currently, ima assumes that it will get the correct i_version from > an inode but that just doesn't hold for stacking filesystem. > > While (1) would likely just fix the immediate bug (2) is correct and > _robust_. If we change how attributes are handled vfs_*() helpers will > get updated and ima with it. Poking at raw inodes without using > appropriate helpers is much more likely to get ima into trouble. This will fix it the right way, I think (assuming it actually works), and should open the door for IMA to work properly with networked filesystems that support i_version as well. Note that there Stephen is correct that calling getattr is probably going to be less efficient here since we're going to end up calling generic_fillattr unnecessarily, but I still think it's the right thing to do. If it turns out to cause measurable performance regressions though, maybe we can look at adding a something that still calls ->getattr if it exists but only returns the change_cookie value. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
