Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230407-trasse-umgearbeitet-d580452b7a9b@brauner> <078d8c1fd6b6de59cde8aa85f8e59a056cb78614.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <078d8c1fd6b6de59cde8aa85f8e59a056cb78614.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 May 2023 12:15:34 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxi7PFPPUuW9CZAZB9tvU2GWVpmpdBt=EUYyw60K=WX-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] overlayfs: Trigger file re-evaluation by IMA / EVM after writes
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Ignaz Forster <iforster@suse.de>, Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:42=E2=80=AFPM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-04-07 at 10:31 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > 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.
> > (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.
>
> In addition to properly setting the i_version for IMA, EVM has a
> similar issue with i_generation and s_uuid. Adding them to
> ovl_copyattr() seems to resolve it.   Does that make sense?
>
> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/util.c b/fs/overlayfs/util.c
> index 923d66d131c1..cd0aeb828868 100644
> --- a/fs/overlayfs/util.c
> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/util.c
> @@ -1118,5 +1118,8 @@ void ovl_copyattr(struct inode *inode)
>         inode->i_atime =3D realinode->i_atime;
>         inode->i_mtime =3D realinode->i_mtime;
>         inode->i_ctime =3D realinode->i_ctime;
> +       inode->i_generation =3D realinode->i_generation;
> +       if (inode->i_sb)
> +               uuid_copy(&inode->i_sb->s_uuid, &realinode->i_sb-
> >s_uuid);

That is not a possible solution Mimi.

The i_gneration copy *may* be acceptable in "all layers on same fs"
setup, but changing overlayfs s_uuid over and over is a non-starter.

If you explain the problem, I may be able to help you find a better solutio=
n.

Thanks,
Amir.