From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752848AbXDKO0N (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:26:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752826AbXDKO0N (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:26:13 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:36911 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752808AbXDKO0L (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:26:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:26:08 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Ian Kent Cc: Miklos Szeredi , hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall Message-ID: <20070411142608.GC30460@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070404183012.429274832@szeredi.hu> <20070406160238.f3178189.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4616D4D4.6020405@zytor.com> <1176195125.3476.47.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1176299311.3377.6.camel@raven.themaw.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1176299311.3377.6.camel@raven.themaw.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Ian Kent (raven@themaw.net): > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 12:48 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in > > > > >> /etc/fstab > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security > > > > implication of allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood. > > > > > > And especially so since there is no way for a filesystem module to veto > > > such requests. > > > > The filesystem can't veto initial mounts based on destination either. > > I don't think it's up to the filesystem to police bind/move mounts in > > any way. > > But if a filesystem can't or the developer thinks that it shouldn't for > some reason, support bind/move mounts then there should be a way for the Can you list some valid reasons why an fs could care where it is mounted? The only thing I could think of is a stackable fs, but it shouldn't care whether it is overlay-mounted or not. thanks, -serge > filesystem to tell the kernel that. > > Surely a filesystem is in a good position to be able to decide if a > mount request "for it" should be allowed to continue based on it's "own > situation and capabilities". > > Ian > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html