| 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, 21 Jan 2008 22:37:49 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: serue@...ibm.com CC: miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, serue@...ibm.com, viro@....linux.org.uk, 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 07/10] unprivileged mounts: add sysctl tunable for "safe" property > What do you think about doing this only if FS_SAFE is also set, > so for instance at first only FUSE would allow itself to be > made user-mountable? > > A safe thing to do, or overly intrusive? It goes somewhat against the "no policy in kernel" policy ;). I think the warning in the documentation should be enough to make sysadmins think twice before doing anything foolish: > +Care should be taken when enabling this, since most > +filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged mounting > +in mind. > + BTW, filesystems like 'proc' and 'sysfs' should also be safe, although the only use for them being marked safe is if the users are allowed to umount them from their private namespace (otherwise a 'mount --bind' has the same effect as a new mount). 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists