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;
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:11:48 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
Message-ID: <20190313161147.GS2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <4603533.ZIfxmiEf7K@blindfold>
 <1852545.qrIQg0rEWx@blindfold>
 <CAJfpegvrG4LfnuC62JNtdXpCf4vb+aEiDre5YCxe7xUSQP8yjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1854703.ve7plDhYWt@blindfold>
 <CAJfpegtgfuAkgv26QH6Ht25OeMiev-QvEf7ror4KAbud7FADgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190313150126.GA703@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190313150126.GA703@sol.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 08:01:27AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:

> What do you think about this?

That fscrypt might have some very deep flaws.  I'll need to RTFS and
review its model, but what I've seen in this thread so far is not
promising anything good.

It's not just overlayfs - there are all kinds of interesting trouble
possible just with fscrypt, unless I'm misparsing what had been said
so far.