linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag

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

Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:32:47 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	linuxram@...ibm.com
CC:	devel@...nvz.org, serue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, viro@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new
	namespace" clone flag

> > 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.
> 
> Also for bind-mount and remount operations the flag has to be propagated
> down its propagation tree.  Otherwise a unpriviledged mount in a shared
> mount wont get reflected in its peers and slaves, leading to unidentical
> shared-subtrees.

That's an interesting question.  Do we want shared mounts to be
totally identical, including mnt_flags?  It doesn't look as if
do_remount() guarantees that currently.

Miklos
-
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/