[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1HeFbh-0004c2-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:14:21 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: linuxram@...ibm.com
CC: serue@...ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org, 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
> As I said earlier, I see a case where two mounts that are peers of each
> other can become un-identical if we dont propagate the "allowusermnt".
>
> As a practical example.
>
> /tmp and /mnt are peers of each other.
> /tmp has its "allowusermnt" flag set, which has not been propagated
> to /mnt.
>
> now a normal-user mounts an ext2 file system under /tmp at /tmp/1
>
> unfortunately the mount wont appear under /mnt/1
Argh, that is not true. That's what I've been trying to explain to
you all along.
The propagation will be done _regardless_ of the flag. The flag is
only checked for the parent of the _requested_ mount. If it is
allowed there, the mount, including any propagations are allowed. If
it's denied, then obviously it's denied everywhere.
> and in case if you allow the mount to appear under /mnt/1, you will
> break unpriviledge mounts semantics which promises: a normal user will
> not be able to mount at a location that does not allow user-mounts.
No, it does not promise that. The flag just promises, that the user
cannot _request_ a mount on the parent mount.
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