Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt

Richard Weinberger
2019-03-13T12:47:44Z

Am Mittwoch, 13. Mï¿½rz 2019, 13:36:02 CET schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> I don't get it. Does fscrypt try to check permissions via
> ->d_revalidate? Why is it not doing that via ->permission()?

Please let me explain. Suppose we have a fscrypto directory /mnt and
I *don't* have the key.

When reading the directory contents of /mnt will return an encrypted filename.
e.g.
# ls /mnt
+mcQ46ne5Y8U6JMV9Wdq2C

As soon I load my key the real name is shown and I can read the file contents too.
That's why fscrypt has ->d_revalidate(). It checks for the key, if the key is
still not here -> stay with the old encrypted name. If the key is present
-> reveal the real name.

Same happens on the other direction if I unlink my key from the keyring.

> >
> > 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().

I hope my answer makes things more clear.

Thanks,
//richard