From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@google.com>
Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:44:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190313164439.GF672@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1552491394.3022.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 08:36:34AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 11:16 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > So before we talk about how to make things work from a technical
> > perspective, we should consider what the use case happens to be, and
> > what are the security requirements. *Why* are we trying to use the
> > combination of overlayfs and fscrypt, and what are the security
> > properties we are trying to provide to someone who is relying on this
> > combination?
>
> I can give one: encrypted containers:
>
> https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/747
>
> The current proposal imagines that the key would be delivered to the
> physical node and the physical node containerd would decrypt all the
> layers before handing them off to to the kubelet. However, one could
> imagine a slightly more secure use case where the layers were
> constructed as an encrypted filesystem tar and so the key would go into
> the kernel and the layers would be constructed with encryption in place
> using fscrypt.
>
> Most of the desired security properties are in image at rest but one
> can imagine that the running image wants some protection against
> containment breaches by other tenants and using fscrypt could provide
> that.
What kind of containment breaches? If they can break root, it's all
over no matter what sort of encryption you are using. If they can't
break root, then the OS's user-id based access control checks (or
SELinux checks if you are using SELinux) will still protect you.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-13 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-13 12:31 overlayfs vs. fscrypt Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 12:36 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-03-13 12:47 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 12:58 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-03-13 13:00 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 13:24 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-03-13 13:32 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 14:26 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-03-13 15:16 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-03-13 15:30 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 15:36 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 15:51 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 16:13 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 16:24 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 16:44 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2019-03-13 17:45 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 18:58 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-03-13 19:17 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 19:57 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 20:06 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 20:25 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 21:04 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 22:13 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 22:29 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 22:58 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 16:06 ` Al Viro
2019-03-13 16:44 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 19:19 ` Al Viro
2019-03-13 19:43 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 15:30 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 20:33 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13 22:26 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 22:42 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 7:34 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-03-14 17:15 ` [RFC] fscrypt_key_required mount option Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 17:15 ` [PATCH 1/4] fscrypt: Implement FS_CFLG_OWN_D_OPS Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 17:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] fscrypt: Export fscrypt_d_ops Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 17:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] ubifs: Simplify fscrypt_get_encryption_info() error handling Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 17:15 ` [PATCH 4/4] ubifs: Implement new mount option, fscrypt_key_required Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 17:49 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-14 20:54 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 23:07 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-03-15 7:48 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-15 13:51 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-03-15 13:59 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-03-14 23:15 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-14 23:42 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-03-14 23:55 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-13 15:01 ` overlayfs vs. fscrypt Eric Biggers
2019-03-13 16:11 ` Al Viro
2019-03-13 16:33 ` Eric Biggers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190313164439.GF672@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=paullawrence@google.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).