From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Wed Nov 20 15:02:21 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23891B9752 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:02:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from borjam@sarenet.es) Received: from cu1176c.smtpx.saremail.com (cu1176c.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.148.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47J5Ww2Pt0z3R51; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:02:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from borjam@sarenet.es) Received: from [172.16.8.16] (unknown [192.148.167.11]) by proxypop02.sare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2988F9DC53A; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:02:15 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: ZFS snapdir readability (Crosspost) From: Borja Marcos In-Reply-To: <20191120144041.7f916360dc0c69bf509c9bd1@magnetkern.de> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:02:14 +0100 Cc: Mike Tancsa , Alan Somers , freebsd-fs Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20191107004635.c6d2e7d464d3d556a0d87465@magnetkern.de> <9B22AD46-BE87-4305-9638-74D23AD4C8CA@sarenet.es> <261FE331-EC5C-48C8-9249-9BCBF887CE38@sarenet.es> <913f7040-6e38-452d-6187-e17fae63b652@sentex.net> <20191120144041.7f916360dc0c69bf509c9bd1@magnetkern.de> To: Jan Behrens X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47J5Ww2Pt0z3R51 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=sarenet.es; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of borjam@sarenet.es designates 195.16.148.151 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=borjam@sarenet.es X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.14 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:195.16.148.0/24]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[sarenet.es,none]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[151.148.16.195.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.84)[ip: (-7.98), ipnet: 195.16.128.0/19(-3.64), asn: 3262(-2.61), country: ES(0.04)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3262, ipnet:195.16.128.0/19, country:ES]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:02:21 -0000 > On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:40, Jan Behrens wrote: >=20 > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 08:24:43 -0500 > Mike Tancsa wrote: >=20 >> On 11/20/2019 5:07 AM, Borja Marcos wrote: >=20 >>> You could make snapshots not mounted, period, requiring = administrator=E2=80=99s actions to mount them. But you >>> would lose convenience for common users.=20 >>=20 >> Actually, thats all I am advocating for-- settings perms on the >> accessibility of the snapshot. ie instead of the "invisibility" = feature, >> change it to an "inaccessible" feature. >>=20 >> ---Mike >=20 > This would solve the security problem, but only as long as snapshots = are > never mounted. Once they are mounted (unless you can specify the > directory where they are mounted), unprivileged users could still > access files they should not be allowed to access. >=20 > A better solution would be to specify user, group, and modes > (e.g. root:root 700) when mounting or auto-mounting snapshots. At least it=E2=80=99s a different problem. Mounting a snapshot = *intentionally* could be something similar to recovering a backup. What poses a serious issue in = my opinion is that the system *does* mount them automatically.=20 Borja.