On 3/24/26 06:14, Gao Xiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2026/3/24 18:02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> On 3/24/26 05:53, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2026/3/24 17:49, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/26 05:30, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2026/3/24 16:48, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 03:47:24PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon 23-03-26 22:36:46, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026/3/23 22:13, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> think that is the corner cases if you don't claim the
>>>>>>>>>>> limitation of FUSE approaches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If none expects that, that is absolute be fine, as I said,
>>>>>>>>>>> it provides strong isolation and stability, but I really
>>>>>>>>>>> suspect this approach could be abused to mount totally
>>>>>>>>>>> untrusted remote filesystems (Actually as I said, some
>>>>>>>>>>> business of ours already did: fetching EXT4 filesystems
>>>>>>>>>>> with unknown status and mount without fscking, that is
>>>>>>>>>>> really disappointing.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, someone downloading untrusted ext4 image, mounting in read-write and
>>>>>>>>> using it for sensitive application, that falls to "insane" category for me
>>>>>>>>> :) We agree on that. And I agree that depending on the application using
>>>>>>>>> FUSE to access such filesystem needn't be safe enough and immutable fs +
>>>>>>>>> overlayfs writeable layer may provide better guarantees about fs behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is my overall goal, I just want to make it clear
>>>>>>>> the difference out of write isolation, but of course,
>>>>>>>> "secure" or not is relative, and according to the
>>>>>>>> system design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If isolation and system stability are enough for
>>>>>>>> a system and can be called "secure", yes, they are
>>>>>>>> both the same in such aspects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would still consider such design highly suspicious but without more
>>>>>>>>> detailed knowledge about the application I cannot say it's outright broken
>>>>>>>>> :).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean "such design"?  "Writable untrusted
>>>>>>>> remote EXT4 images mounting on the host"? Really, we have
>>>>>>>> such applications for containers for many years but I don't
>>>>>>>> want to name it here, but I'm totally exhaused by such
>>>>>>>> usage (since I explained many many times, and they even
>>>>>>>> never bother with LWN.net) and the internal team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By "such design" I meant generally the concept that you fetch filesystem
>>>>>>> images (regardless whether ext4 or some other type) from untrusted source.
>>>>>>> Unless you do cryptographical verification of the data, you never know what
>>>>>>> kind of garbage your application is processing which is always invitation
>>>>>>> for nasty exploits and bugs...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is another 500 mail discussion about FS_USERNS_MOUNT on
>>>>>> block-backed filesystems then my verdict still stands that the only
>>>>>> condition under which I will let the VFS allow this if the underlying
>>>>>> device is signed and dm-verity protected. The kernel will continue to
>>>>>> refuse unprivileged policy in general and specifically based on quality
>>>>>> or implementation of the underlying filesystem driver.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First, if block devices are your concern, fine, how about
>>>>> allowing it if EROFS file-backed mounts and S_IMMUTABLE
>>>>> for underlay files is set, and refuse any block device
>>>>> mounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the issue is "you don't know how to define the quality
>>>>> or implementation of the underlying filesystem drivers",
>>>>> you could list your detailed concerns (I think at least
>>>>> people have trust to the individual filesystem
>>>>> maintainers' judgements), otherwise there will be endless
>>>>> new sets of new immutable filesystems for this requirement
>>>>> (previously, composefs , puzzlefs, and tarfs are all for
>>>>> this; I admit I didn't get the point of FS_USERNS_MOUNT
>>>>> at that time of 2023; but know I also think FS_USERNS_MOUNT
>>>>> is a strong requirement for DinD for example), because that
>>>>> idea should be sensible according to Darrick and Jan's
>>>>> reply, and I think more people will agree with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And another idea is that you still could return arbitary
>>>>> metadata with immutable FUSE fses and let users get
>>>>> garbage (meta)data, and FUSE already allows FS_USERNS_MOUNT,
>>>>> and if user and mount namespaces are isolated, why bothering
>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I just hope know why? And as you may notice,
>>>>> "Demi Marie Obenour wrote:"
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only exceptions are if the filesystem is incredibly simple
>>>>>> or formal methods are used, and neither is the case for existing
>>>>>> filesystems in the Linux kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still strong disagree with that judgement, a minimal EROFS
>>>>> can build an image with superblock, dirs, and files with
>>>>> xattrs in a 4k-size image; and 4k image should be enough for
>>>>> fuzzing; also the in-core EROFS format even never allocates
>>>>> any extra buffers, which is much simplar than FUSE.
>>>>>
>>>>> In brief, so how to meet your requirement?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Gao Xiang
>>>>
>>>> Rewriting the code in Rust would dramatically reduce the attack
>>>> surface when it comes to memory corruption.  That's a lot to ask,
>>>> though, and a lot of work.
>>>
>>> I don't think so, FUSE can do FS_USERNS_MOUNT and written in C
>>> , and the attack surface is already huge.
>>>
>>> EROFS will switch to Rust some time, but your judgement will
>>> make people to make another complete new toys of Rust kernel
>>> filesystems --- just because EROFS is currently not written
>>> in Rust.
>>>
>>> I'm completely exhaused with such game: If I will address
>>> every single fuzzing bug and CVE, why not?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gao Xiang
>>
>> I should have written that rewriting in Rust could help convince
>> people that it is in fact safe.  One *can* make safe C code, as shown
>> by OpenSSH.  It's just *harder* to write safe C code, and harder to
>> demonstrate to others that C code is in fact safe.
> 
> How do you define a formal `safe C`? "C without pointers"?

Safe = "history of not having many vulnerabilities"

> Actually, we tried to switch to Rust but Rust developpers
> resist with incremental change, they just want a pure Rust
> and switch to it all the time, that is impossible for all
> mature kernel filesystems.

Incremental change is definitely good.

>> Whether the burden of proof being placed on you is excessive is a
>> separate question that I do not have the experience to comment on.
> 
> That is funny TBH, just because the whole policy here
> is broken, if you call out the LOC of codebase, I
> believe FUSE, OverlayFS and even TCP/IP are all complex
> than EROFS.
> 
> If you still think LOC is the issue, I'm pretty fine to
> isolate a `fs/simple_erofs` and drop all advanced runtime
> features and even compression.

I don't think LOC is the main problem.

>> That said:
>>
>>> I will address every single fuzzing bug and CVE
>>
>> is very different than the view of most filesystem developers.
>> If the fuzzers have good code coverage in EROFS, this is a very strong
>> argument for making an exception.
> 
> I don't know if it's just your judgement or Christian's
> judgement.
> 
> Currently EROFS is well-fuzzed by syzkaller and I keep
> maintaining it as 0 active issue (as I said, 4k images
> are enough for fuzzing all EROFS metadata format, almost
> all previous syzkaller issues are out of compressed
> inodes but we can just disable compression formats for
> FS_USERNS_MOUNT, just because compression algorithms
> are already complex for fuzzing) and we will definitely
> improve this part even further if that is the real
> concern of this.
> 
> And we will accept any fuzzing bug as CVE, and fix them
> as 0day bugs like other subsystems written in C which
> accept untrusted (meta)data.  Is that end of story of
> this game?

It should be!
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)