From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: overlayfs vs. fscrypt Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:24:10 +0100 Message-ID: <2287057.GpIlh1E3ca@blindfold> References: <4603533.ZIfxmiEf7K@blindfold> <20190313155144.GC703@sol.localdomain> <1552493632.3022.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1552493632.3022.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Eric Biggers , Theodore Ts'o , Amir Goldstein , Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel , linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, overlayfs , linux-kernel , Paul Lawrence List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, 17:13:52 CET schrieb James Bottomley: > > What do you mean by "containment breaches by other tenants"? Note > > that while the key is added, fscrypt doesn't prevent access to the > > encrypted files. > > You mean it's not multiuser safe? Even if user a owns the key they add > user b can still see the decrypted contents? If user a reads the file before, yes. Then user b sees it because the contents got cached. That's why you need still make sure that your access control is sane. Thanks, //richard