[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1mz1cq3v6.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:45:33 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, 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
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
> Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
>> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
>>
>> If CLONE_NEWNS and CLONE_NEWNS_USERMNT are given to clone(2) or
>> unshare(2), then allow user mounts within the new namespace.
>>
>> This is not flexible enough, because user mounts can't be enabled for
>> the initial namespace.
>>
>> The remaining clone bits also getting dangerously few...
>>
>> Alternatives are:
>>
>> - prctl() flag
>> - setting through the containers filesystem
>
> Sorry, I know I had mentioned it, but this is definately my least
> favorite approach.
>
> Curious whether are any other suggestions/opinions from the containers
> list?
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.
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.
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