[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1HfWPE-00049L-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:22:44 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 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 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts
> > + /*
> > + * For unprivileged mounts use current uid/gid. Still allow
> > + * "user_id" and "group_id" options for compatibility, but
> > + * only if they match these values.
> > + */
> > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> > + d->user_id = current->uid;
> > + d->user_id_present = 1;
> > + d->group_id = current->gid;
> > + d->group_id_present = 1;
> > +
> > + }
>
> CAP_SETUID is the appropriate capability...
>
> This is not a dimension we have not fully explored.
> What is the problem with a user controlled mount having different
> uid and gid values.
>
> Yes they map into different users but how is this a problem.
> The only problem that I can recall is the historic chown problem
> where you could give files to other users and mess up their quotas.
>
> Or is the problem other users writing to this user controlled
> filesystem?
Yes. Or even just a suid process trying to access the user controlled
filesystem. See Documentation/filesystems/fuse.txt for the gory
details.
Eric, thanks for the detailed review :)
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