[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1zm51is2h.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:57:10 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, serue@...ibm.com,
viro@....linux.org.uk, linuxram@...ibm.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] allow unprivileged mounts
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> writes:
> On Apr 21 2007 08:10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
>>>> mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
>>>>
>>>> Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
>>>> mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting this flag.
>>>
>>> Practically speaking, is there any realistic likelihood that any filesystem
>>> apart from FUSE will ever use this?
>>
>>Also potentially some of the kernel virtual filesystems. /proc should
>>be safe already. If you don't have any kind of backing store this problem
>>gets easier.
>
> tmpfs!
tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap. Which
is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume. Those are set as
mount options as I recall. Which means that we would need to do something
different with respect to limits before tmpfs could become safe for
an untrusted user to mount.
Still it's close.
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