linux-kernel - Re: [patch 9/9] unprivileged mounts: add "no submounts" flag

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:43:10 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	serue@...ibm.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, accensi@...il.com, serue@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
	viro@....linux.org.uk, ebiederm@...ssion.com, kzak@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 9/9] unprivileged mounts: add "no submounts" flag

> > > Why not "nosubmnt"?
> > 
> > Why not indeed.  Maybe I should try to use my brain sometime.
> 
> Well it really should have 'user' or 'unpriv' in the name
> somewhere.  'nosubmnt' is more confusing than 'nomnt' because
> it no submounts really sounds like a reasonable thing in
> itself...

I slept on it, and I still think 'nosubmnt' might be the best
compromise.  Obviously the superuser has privileges, that override
what is normally allowed, and we don't find it strange when a
read-only file is happily being written by root.

It may feel wrong in the context of mounts, because we are so used to
mounts being privileged-only.

Objections?  Once this goes in, it will stay the same forever, so now
is the time to express any doubts...

Thanks,
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/