FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-06-2012, 08:50 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Lucid backport for 069ddcda37b2cf5bb4b6031a944c0e9359213262

Tyler - as far as I can tell the super block flags get initialized
outside of the ecryptfs code. Is this patch sufficient for 2.6.32.y ?

rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 08-06-2012, 08:57 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Lucid backport for 069ddcda37b2cf5bb4b6031a944c0e9359213262

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.On 08/06/2012 02:50 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Tyler - as far as I can tell the super block flags get initialized
> outside of the ecryptfs code. Is this patch sufficient for 2.6.32.y ?
>
> rtg
>

Doh! see attached.

--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:40 PM
Tyler Hicks
 
Default Lucid backport for 069ddcda37b2cf5bb4b6031a944c0e9359213262

On 2012-08-06 14:57:13, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 02:50 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > Tyler - as far as I can tell the super block flags get initialized
> > outside of the ecryptfs code. Is this patch sufficient for 2.6.32.y ?

Yeah, I see where they're getting initialized in get_sb_nodev(), which
is called just before ecryptfs_read_super().

I do have a simple testcase for this bug in ecryptfs-utils. Let me know
if you want instructions on how to build and run the test.

Tyler

> >
> > rtg
> >
>
> Doh! see attached.
>
> --
> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

> From e573cb89603f26bfcdab92d510eb92a45d0d75b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:42:32 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] eCryptfs: Copy up POSIX ACL and read-only flags from lower
> mount
>
> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1009207
>
> When the eCryptfs mount options do not include '-o acl', but the lower
> filesystem's mount options do include 'acl', the MS_POSIXACL flag is not
> flipped on in the eCryptfs super block flags. This flag is what the VFS
> checks in do_last() when deciding if the current umask should be applied
> to a newly created inode's mode or not. When a default POSIX ACL mask is
> set on a directory, the current umask is incorrectly applied to new
> inodes created in the directory. This patch ignores the MS_POSIXACL flag
> passed into ecryptfs_mount() and sets the flag on the eCryptfs super
> block depending on the flag's presence on the lower super block.
>
> Additionally, it is incorrect to allow a writeable eCryptfs mount on top
> of a read-only lower mount. This missing check did not allow writes to
> the read-only lower mount because permissions checks are still performed
> on the lower filesystem's objects but it is best to simply not allow a
> rw mount on top of ro mount. However, a ro eCryptfs mount on top of a rw
> mount is valid and still allowed.
>
> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1009207
>
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
> Reported-by: Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@googlemail.com>
> Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
> (back ported from commit 069ddcda37b2cf5bb4b6031a944c0e9359213262)
> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
> ---
> fs/ecryptfs/main.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/main.c b/fs/ecryptfs/main.c
> index e2f18ad..783f7fc 100644
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/main.c
> +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/main.c
> @@ -589,6 +589,15 @@ static int ecryptfs_read_super(struct super_block *sb, const char *dev_name,
> }
>
> ecryptfs_set_superblock_lower(sb, path.dentry->d_sb);
> +
> + /**
> + * Set the POSIX ACL flag based on whether they're enabled in the lower
> + * mount. Force a read-only eCryptfs mount if the lower mount is ro.
> + * Allow a ro eCryptfs mount even when the lower mount is rw.
> + */
> + sb->s_flags &= ~MS_POSIXACL;
> + sb->s_flags |= path.dentry->d_sb->s_flags & (MS_RDONLY | MS_POSIXACL);
> +
> sb->s_maxbytes = path.dentry->d_sb->s_maxbytes;
> sb->s_blocksize = path.dentry->d_sb->s_blocksize;
> ecryptfs_set_dentry_lower(sb->s_root, path.dentry);
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 08-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Lucid backport for 069ddcda37b2cf5bb4b6031a944c0e9359213262

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2012 04:40 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2012-08-06 14:57:13, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 08/06/2012 02:50 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> Tyler - as far as I can tell the super block flags get
>>> initialized outside of the ecryptfs code. Is this patch
>>> sufficient for 2.6.32.y ?
>
> Yeah, I see where they're getting initialized in get_sb_nodev(),
> which is called just before ecryptfs_read_super().
>
> I do have a simple testcase for this bug in ecryptfs-utils. Let me
> know if you want instructions on how to build and run the test.
>

I've assigned the bug to Colin so I'm sure he'll figure it out.

rtg
- --
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQISKyAAoJED12yEX6FEfKqSAP/2S9Bbq+SEdHEc59SpIj6nk/
jT8hvbznBmz2eqFP7hhIBjBD37wo3AeubeQBU8Y4lblu/SUWWu3wn0ATBMzoZ0rl
+YADvpQ+cy4ke08aQn+ljEhQ9kBZmMn1iklwo1wYR/jW4b0aWI2drC0C6cq6knu0
+j2DtzTRIPdFJ9gnOkgVptoZD+B1XYbeKQ0JPuy4VusFQo04z1 1p4X5E6r+2kV6W
pGCpjAvmxEWEr//zje0f2CXjc0085spM5Ktyd2XS6OMiaHYkOuI0oEfrpIx4AE3X
M3P0W+M4IbZhYu3bF4zZWN+fZc9otqdLC3ijHNcdVtsbV9j5DO 0NiECTFoe54j8L
rXt5srLlnRITWH0dFKx3xDtgklyh6FkoKlJWrlSRGNNhp7kuoe OidlrGOiHA78dQ
4uiYeQNj5HAX5SXXWmqlG37ifzPXFZcUAieVjxju+IxjTskvQO 48EuRFO8BBDzCr
RlVTPtRfD3ZCAhpEGwID0BkasRsK3Wz8BeOMC25NeevYEMvVkJ 1FmGwRpG3WW9nR
6RCCUa276mNDmbtxVfa4+K5douJeJlGXJhMyqgLnCmSvTmjdmU o8SFRlS+wYXucA
22EzpwhpEWuzzWBIRRoAHuZdJszso5ArB0OmlfDpiA88/n+DzP8ITBGGefkV5iB6
InOx5VtVaVDNXXIZkyt0
=j4F/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 08-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Tyler Hicks
 
Default Lucid backport for 069ddcda37b2cf5bb4b6031a944c0e9359213262

On 2012-08-07 08:14:19, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 04:40 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > On 2012-08-06 14:57:13, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >> On 08/06/2012 02:50 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >>> Tyler - as far as I can tell the super block flags get
> >>> initialized outside of the ecryptfs code. Is this patch
> >>> sufficient for 2.6.32.y ?
> >
> > Yeah, I see where they're getting initialized in get_sb_nodev(),
> > which is called just before ecryptfs_read_super().
> >
> > I do have a simple testcase for this bug in ecryptfs-utils. Let me
> > know if you want instructions on how to build and run the test.
> >
>
> I've assigned the bug to Colin so I'm sure he'll figure it out.

Ah, good. He's very familiar with it.

Tyler

>
> rtg
> --
> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org