Message-ID: <54D1F215.9030404@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:19:01 +0100
From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
CC: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] WIP: Add syscall unlinkat_s (currently x86* only)
References: <1422896713-25367-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <1422896713-25367-2-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <20150203060542.GZ29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <54D071AA.1030302@ahsoftware.de> <20150203075616.GA29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <54D08BF4.3000903@ahsoftware.de> <54D093A0.7090201@ahsoftware.de> <54D0C3B8.2050507@ahsoftware.de> <20150203174839.GD2509@thunk.org> <54D10D0E.8090204@ahsoftware.de> <20150203233332.GE29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150203233332.GE29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3572
Lines: 75

Am 04.02.2015 um 00:33 schrieb Al Viro:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 07:01:50PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
>
>> Yeah, as I've already admitted in the bug, I never should have use
>> the word secure, because everyone nowadays seems to end up in panic
>> when reading that word.
>>
>> So, if I would be able to use sed on my mails, I would replace
>> unlinkat_s() with unlinkat_w() (for wipe) or would say that _s does
>> stand for 'shred' in the means of shred(1).
>
> TBH, I suspect that the saner API would be something like EXT2_IOC_[SG[ETFLAGS,
> allowing to set and query that along with other flags (append-only, etc.).
>
> Forget about unlink; first of all, whatever API you use should only _mark_
> the inode as "zero freed blocks" (or trim, for that matter).  You can't
> force freeing of an inode, so either you make sure that subsequent freeing
> of inode, whenever it happens, will do that work, or your API is hopelessly
> racy.  Moreover, when link has been removed it's too late to report that
> fs has no way to e.g. trim those blocks, so you really want to have it done
> _before_ the actual link removal.  And if the file contents is that sensitive,
> you'd better extend the same protection to all operations that free its
> blocks, including truncate(), fallocate() hole-punching, whatever.  What's
> more, if you divorce that from link removal, you probably don't want it as
> in-core-only flag - have it stored in inode, if fs supports that.
>
> Alternatively, you might want to represent it as xattr - as much as I hate
> those, it might turn out to be the best fit in this case, if we end up
> with several variants for freed blocks disposal.  Not sure...
>
> But whichever way we represent that state, IMO
> 	a) operation should be similar to chmod/chattr/setfattr - modifying
> inode metadata.
> 	b) it should affect _all_ operations freeing blocks of that file
> from that point on
> 	c) it should be able to fail, telling you that you can't do that for
> this backing store.

My intention to use unlinkat() or unlinkat_s() was the following:

- It can be supported by most filesystems (see my fat patch)

- It doesn't really make any promises it can't, like deleting leftovers 
of an already modified file. That's where a much more complicated 
solution like the 's' attribute would appropriate. It just should try to 
wipe the current contents of a file.

The second reason was also the reason why I've crafted the subject of 
the RFC very carefully: "Offer a way for userspace to request real 
deletion of files".

I did that to avoid the nitpickers. It doesn't say how the request is or 
has to be handled. I was aware of all the problems which arise if one 
tries to fullfill what the 's' flag promises. The final result of trying 
to get a 100 percent solution is just what we have now: nothing at all.

It wasn't the first time I've posted a patch to LKML, I know that 
maintainers like to request high towers from ordinary people and 
therefor very often nice dog houses were refused. There might be a 
legitimate reason to request a high tower from a big company, but that's 
something totally different.

And I refuse to try to understand why maintainers request high towers. ;)

And because hope never dies, I was again silly enough to post a simple 
patch. ;)

Regards,

Alexander Hpller
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/