Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4603533.ZIfxmiEf7K@blindfold>
In-Reply-To: <4603533.ZIfxmiEf7K@blindfold>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:36:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsy31D+=VJ+By2a9TLCvZJwvAUpb+_bJ5JVTsmsbZJTKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:31 PM Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> overlayfs and fscrypt are not friends.
> Currently it is not possible to use a fscrypt encrypted directory as upper
> directory with overlayfs.
> The reason for that is, fscrypt implements ->d_revalidate().
>
> From fscrypt's point of view having ->d_revalidate() makes sense because it
> wants to hide/show encrypted filenames if someone loads or unlinks a key.
>
> On the other hand, overlayfs makes sure that the upper directory cannot
> change beneath it. Therefore it checks whether the upper directory is a remote
> filesystem by checking for ->d_revalidate() and refuses to mount if so.
>
> In my little embedded Linux world it is common to use both UBIFS and
> overlayfs. Now with UBIFS being encrypted using fscrypt, overlayfs is a
> problem.
> My current hack is not using fscrypt_d_ops in UBIFS. This works because on a
> typical embedded target you setup your crypto keys exactly once, right before
> you mount overlayfs in an initramfs.
>
> But I'm sure this problem will hit sooner or later users of ext4 and f2fs too.
> Therefore I'd like to discuss possible solutions.
>
> So far I see two options:
>
> 1. Get rid of ->d_revalidate() in fscrypt.
> Maybe we find a way to return a dentry via ->lookup() which is not cached at
> all and therefore no ->d_revalidate() is needed. If unreadable and encrypted
> filename lookups are slow, so what?
> AFAIU this approach is impossible in the current dcache design since it is not
> allowed to have more than one dentry to the same file.

I don't get it.  Does fscrypt try to check permissions via
->d_revalidate?  Why is it not doing that via ->permission()?

>
> 2. Teach overlayfs to deal with a upper that has ->d_revalidate().
> Given the complexity of overlayfs I'm not sure how feasible this is.
> But I'm no overlayfs expert, maybe I miss something.

I don't think it would be too complex.  But first I'd like to
understand exactly why fscrypt is (ab) using d_revalidate().

Thanks,
Miklos