linux-kernel - Re: [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts

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]

Message-Id: <20070421005516.18e0c797.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:55:16 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	serue@...ibm.com, viro@....linux.org.uk, linuxram@...ibm.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:40 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:

> Use FS_SAFE for "fuse" fs type, but not for "fuseblk".
> 
> FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged
> users.  This has also been verified in practice over many years.

How does FUSE do this?

There are obvious cases like crafting a filesystem which has setuid executables
or world-writeable device nodes or whatever.  I'm sure there are lots of other
cases.

Where is FUSE's implementation of all this protection described?
-
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/