[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1HeBjt-0004G8-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:06:33 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: trond.myklebust@....uio.no
CC: ebiederm@...ssion.com, serue@...ibm.com, linuxram@...ibm.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@....linux.org.uk,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new
namespace" clone flag
> > > Don't forget that almost all mount flags are per-superblock. How are you
> > > planning on dealing with the case that one user mounts a filesystem
> > > read-only, while another is trying to mount the same one read-write?
> >
> > Yeah, I forgot, the per-mount read-only patches are not yet in.
> >
> > That doesn't really change my agrument though. _If_ the flag is per
> > mount, then it makes sense to be able to change it on a master and not
> > on a slave. If mount flags are propagated, this is not possible.
>
> Read-only isn't the only issue. On something like NFS, there are flags
> to set the security flavour, turn on/off encryption etc.
>
> If I mount your home directory using no encryption in my namespace, for
> instance, then neither you nor the administrator will be able to turn it
> on afterwards in yours without first unmounting it from mine so that the
> superblock is destroyed.
OK, that's interesting, but I fail to grasp the relevance of this to
unprivileged mounts.
Or are you thinking of unprivileged NFS mounts? Well, think again,
because that involves _much_ more than it seems at first glance.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists