Re: FS: hardlinks on directories

From: Jesse Pollard (jesse_at_cats-chateau.net)
Date: 08/04/03

  • Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] make lookup_create non-static" 
    To: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>, herbert@13thfloor.at
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:38:17 -0500

    On Monday 04 August 2003 11:35, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
    > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:16:57 +0200
    >
    > Herbert Pötzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
    > > on the other hand, if you want somebody to implement
    > > this stuff for you, you'll have to provide convincing
    > > arguments for it, I for example, would be glad if
    > > hardlinks where removed from unix altogether ...
    >
    > Huh, hard stuff!
    >
    > Explain your solution for a very common problem:
    >
    > You have a _big_ fileserver, say some SAN or the like with Gigs.
    > Your data on it is organized according to your basic user structure,
    > because it is very handy to have all data from one user altogether in one
    > directory. You have lots of hosts that use parts of the users' data for a
    > wide range of purposes, lets say web, ftp, sql, name one.
    > If you cannot re-structure and export your data according to the
    > requirements of your external hosts (web-trees to webserver, sql-trees to
    > sql-server, ftp-trees to ftp-server, name-it to cool-server) you will have
    > to export the total user tree to all your (cluster-) nodes. Do you want
    > that? NO! Of course you don't want that in times of hacked webservers and
    > uncontrollable sql-servers. If anything blows up you likely loose all data
    > at once. On the other hand, if you managed to link all web-data together in
    > one directory and exported that to your webservers and they are hacked, you
    > just blew up all your web-data but nothing more. This is a remarkable risk
    > reduction.
    > And now? Name your idea to export only the data needed to the servers that
    > need it. And keep in mind, we are talking of Gigs and tenthousands of
    > users. You definitely don't want one mount per user per service.
    > Can you think of a more elegant way to solve such a problem than
    > hardlinking all web in one single webtree, all sql in one single sql tree
    > ... and then export this single tree (with its artificial structure) to the
    > corresponding server?
    > I am curiously listening...

    Don't do that. It is too insecure.

    1. the structure you describe is FRAGILE. Just adding one more entry
    could/would break the entire structure.

    2. If you mix security structures like this you WILL get a problem.

    What you do is copy the declassified data to a nonsecure area (also known
    as released data). This way the user can modify internal cata without
    causing the web server potentially catastrophic releases.

    Same with the SQL. Do not attmept to mix sensitive and nonsensitive data
    this way.

    If you web server got hacked, how do you prevent the hack from ADDING
    more links? Or adding SQL injections to other applications...

    If you've get this much disk space, then you can afford to provide isolated
    data too.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] make lookup_create non-static"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Does SQL Server Compact 3.1 support multi connection?
      ... Just wanted to add a final note that, though it might be ok to run SQL CE ... All apps and web server, SQLCE 3.1 run on the same machine. ... But I'm meaning simultaneous multiple connections from apps and web ...
      (microsoft.public.sqlserver.ce)
    • Re: Does SQL Server Compact 3.1 support multi connection?
      ... It's the point that SQL CE not designed for the situation like a web server ... And we expect worst case is like 10 connections. ... But I'm meaning simultaneous multiple connections from apps and web ...
      (microsoft.public.sqlserver.ce)
    • Re: Query Kills webserver but SQL server runs fine?
      ... >I have a query that looks for addresses in a table and retrieves any of the ... Address1, such as when you are looking for only a street. ... SQL Server MVP ... Only our web server is affected and has to be restarted. ...
      (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
    • Re: fox pro, odbc, remote web server, firewall
      ... There is a cisco2600 first, then theres a web server in the dmz, then a pix ... 506e behind that and a sql box behind that. ... I cannot install fox pro on the web server. ... > IDE needs to be installed on the web server for the Visual FoxPro OLE DB> provider to work. ...
      (microsoft.public.data.odbc)
    • Re: Kernel SCM saga..
      ... >Because it sucks? ... SQL Databases like SQLite aren't slow. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)