Re: FUSE merging? (2)

["Ragnar Kjørstad" <kernel@ragnark.vestdata.no>]

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:17:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > I see your point.  But then this is really not a security issue, but
> > > an "are you sure you want to format C:" style protection for the
> > > user's own sake.  Adding a mount option (checked by the library) for
> > > this would be fine.  E.g. with "mount_nonempty" it would not refuse to
> > > mount on a non-leaf dir, and README would document, that using this
> > > option might cause trouble.  Otherwise the mount would be refused with
> > > a reference to the above option.
> > 
> > IMO that should be a generic mount option, not FUSE specific.
> > Maybe the default could vary for each fs, but I'd vote against that.

Why a mount option at all?
Why not just a switch for the mount utility?

> The option only makes sense with the default being restrictive.  But
> making that default for all filesystems can't be done, because that
> would immediately break thousands of existing installations.

I think it is acceptable to change this behaviour in a new version of
the mount utility. One could considder ignoring the restriction when
running with "-a" or when running as root - that would reduce or
eliminate the problems with the transition.

However, if this is implemented in mount itself, it is totally
orthogonal to the FUSE merge discussion.


-- 
Ragnar Kjørstad
Software Engineer
Scali - http://www.scali.com
Scaling the Linux Datacenter