linux-kernel - Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

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]

Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:29:40 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	serue@...ibm.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, serge@...lyn.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linuxram@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, viro@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

> So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will
> remain unchanged?

Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added
to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers.

There's one open point, that I think we haven't really explored, and
that is the propagation semantics.  I think you had the idea, that a
propagated mount should inherit ownership from the parent into which
it was propagated.

That sounds good if everyone agrees?

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/