[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m13bd1q2v0.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:08:03 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Sam Vilain <sam.vilain@...alyst.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru> writes:
>>>- if (current->fsuid == inode->i_uid)
>>>+ if ((current->fsuid == inode->i_uid) &&
>>>+ (current->nsproxy->user_ns == inode->i_sb->user_ns))
>>> mode >>= 6;
>> I really don't think assigning a user namespace to a superblock is the
>> right way to go. Seems to me like the _view_ into the filesystem is
>> what you want to modify. That would seem to me to mean that each
>> 'struct namespace' (filesystem namespace) or vfsmount would be assigned
>> a corresponding user namespace, *not* the superblock.
> I dislike this way either. We need an ability to have an access to container
> filesystems and data from the host.
> such a strong checks break this.
No this check doesn't. CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE still works.
Of course enter a running container is a subject for major debate.
Eric
-
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