linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200607152039.50786.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:39:50 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace

Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 06:35 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I hope the confusion has passed for Trond.  My impression was he
> > figured this was per process data so it didn't make sense any where
> > near a filesystem, and the superblock was the last place it should
> > be.
>
> You are still using the wrong abstraction. Data that is not global to
> the entire machine has absolutely _no_ place being put into the
> superblock. It doesn't matter if it is process-specific,
> container-specific or whatever-else-specific, it will still be vetoed.
>
> If your real problem is uid/gid mapping on top of generic filesystems,
> then have you looked into the *BSD solution of using a stackable
> filesystem (i.e. umapfs)?

A stackable FS is really overkill here, when all that is needed is a simple 
mapping.  An easy solution would be, to allow for perMount Handlers via 
hooks into the VFS, as was suggested in the '[RFC] VFS: FS CoW using 
redirection' thread.

Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/