From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261224AbVGDPUp (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:20:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261225AbVGDPUp (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:20:45 -0400 Received: from [217.149.127.10] ([217.149.127.10]:9961 "EHLO stine.vestdata.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261224AbVGDPUh (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:20:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 17:19:42 +0200 From: Ragnar =?iso-8859-15?Q?Kj=F8rstad?= To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: 7eggert@gmx.de, akpm@osdl.org, aia21@cam.ac.uk, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FUSE merging? (2) Message-ID: <20050704151942.GB32763@vestdata.no> References: <4maPM-5XJ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mcHV-7no-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mduc-7Zg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mfcJ-UT-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mitV-3mL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mv7Q-2Ki-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mwdG-3AP-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mwwX-3N9-9@gated-at.bofh.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Zet.no-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Zet.no-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ragnark@stine.vestdata.no Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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