| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:56:15 +0200 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: linuxram@...ibm.com CC: miklos@...redi.hu, devel@...nvz.org, serue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org, viro@....linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag > > > Also for bind-mount and remount operations the flag has to be propagated > > > down its propagation tree. Otherwise a unpriviledged mount in a shared > > > mount wont get reflected in its peers and slaves, leading to unidentical > > > shared-subtrees. > > > > That's an interesting question. Do we want shared mounts to be > > totally identical, including mnt_flags? It doesn't look as if > > do_remount() guarantees that currently. > > Depends on the semantics of each of the flags. Some flags like of the > read/write flag, would not interfere with the propagation semantics > AFAICT. But this one certainly seems to interfere. That depends. Current patches check the "unprivileged submounts allowed under this mount" flag only on the requested mount and not on the propagated mounts. Do you see a problem with this? Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists