[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070413134732.GB1483@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:47:33 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, serue@...ibm.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
viro@....linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxram@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag
Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
> > Given the existence of shared subtrees allowing/denying this at the mount
> > namespace level is silly and wrong.
> >
> > If we need more than just the filesystem permission checks can we
> > make it a mount flag settable with mount and remount that allows
> > non-privileged users the ability to create mount points under it
> > in directories they have full read/write access to.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> > I don't like the use of clone flags for this purpose but in this
> > case the shared subtress are a much more fundamental reasons for not
> > doing this at the namespace level.
>
> I'll drop the clone flag, and add a mount flag instead.
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
Makes sense, so then on login pam has to spawn a new user namespace and
construct a root fs with no shared subtrees and with the
user-mounts-allowed flag specified?
-serge
-
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