| 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: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:07:00 +0100 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: add isolated project support Hi, > PROJECT_ISOLATION > This feature allows to create an isolated project subtrees. > Isolation means what: > 1) directory subtree has no common inodes (no hadlinks across subtrees) > 2) All descendants belongs to the same subtree. > > Project subtree's isolation assumptions: > 1)Inode can not belongs to different subtree trees > Otherwise changes in one subtree result in changes in other subtree > which contradict to isolation criteria. Just a curious question: Do you really need this subtree separation in your envisioned containers usecase? Because there I imagine you have one project_id per container, containers form disjoint subtrees (at least their writeable parts) and each file & directory has this project_id set and you forbid to manipulate project id's from inside the container (otherwise you'd have problems with enforcing quota limits I guess). And when project_id is a per-inode property, quota has no problems with it (is well defined) even without subtree separation. So is this subtree separation really needed? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> SuSE CR Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists