linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:08:34 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	haveblue@...ibm.com
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, serue@...ibm.com,
	viro@....linux.org.uk, ebiederm@...ssion.com, kzak@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts

> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > +static int reserve_user_mount(void)
> > +{
> > +       int err = 0;
> > +
> > +       spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
> > +       if (nr_user_mounts >= max_user_mounts && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > +               err = -EPERM;
> > +       else
> > +               nr_user_mounts++;
> > +       spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
> > +       return err;
> > +} 
> 
> Would -ENOSPC or -ENOMEM be a more descriptive error here?  

The logic behind EPERM, is that this failure is only for unprivileged
callers.  ENOMEM is too specifically about OOM.  It could be changed
to ENOSPC, ENFILE, EMFILE, or it could remain EPERM.  What do others
think?

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/