On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 11:35:51AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > commit f5e55e777cc93eae1416f0fa4908e8846b6d7825 upstream. > [Please apply to 4.19-stable. This is an important fix to have, > and it will be needed for xfstest generic/398 to pass if > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201031054141.695517-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx > is applied. This is a clean cherry-pick to 4.19, but it doesn't apply > to 4.14 and earlier; different backports would be needed for that.] > > Currently, trying to rename or link a regular file, directory, or > symlink into an encrypted directory fails with EPERM when the source > file is unencrypted or is encrypted with a different encryption policy, > and is on the same mountpoint. It is correct for the operation to fail, > but the choice of EPERM breaks tools like 'mv' that know to copy rather > than rename if they see EXDEV, but don't know what to do with EPERM. > > Our original motivation for EPERM was to encourage users to securely > handle their data. Encrypting files by "moving" them into an encrypted > directory can be insecure because the unencrypted data may remain in > free space on disk, where it can later be recovered by an attacker. > It's much better to encrypt the data from the start, or at least try to > securely delete the source data e.g. using the 'shred' program. > > However, the current behavior hasn't been effective at achieving its > goal because users tend to be confused, hack around it, and complain; > see e.g. https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/76. And in some cases > it's actually inconsistent or unnecessary. For example, 'mv'-ing files > between differently encrypted directories doesn't work even in cases > where it can be secure, such as when in userspace the same passphrase > protects both directories. Yet, you *can* already 'mv' unencrypted > files into an encrypted directory if the source files are on a different > mountpoint, even though doing so is often insecure. > > There are probably better ways to teach users to securely handle their > files. For example, the 'fscrypt' userspace tool could provide a > command that migrates unencrypted files into an encrypted directory, > acting like 'shred' on the source files and providing appropriate > warnings depending on the type of the source filesystem and disk. > > Receiving errors on unimportant files might also force some users to > disable encryption, thus making the behavior counterproductive. It's > desirable to make encryption as unobtrusive as possible. > > Therefore, change the error code from EPERM to EXDEV so that tools > looking for EXDEV will fall back to a copy. > > This, of course, doesn't prevent users from still doing the right things > to securely manage their files. Note that this also matches the > behavior when a file is renamed between two project quota hierarchies; > so there's precedent for using EXDEV for things other than mountpoints. > > xfstests generic/398 will require an update with this change. > > [Rewritten from an earlier patch series by Michael Halcrow.] > > Cc: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Joe Richey <joerichey@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst | 12 ++++++++++-- > fs/crypto/hooks.c | 6 +++--- > fs/crypto/policy.c | 3 +-- > include/linux/fscrypt.h | 4 ++-- > 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) All 4 backports now queued up, thanks! greg k-h
