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 22:27:32 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de
CC:	ebiederm@...ssion.com, 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,
	hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

> On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly?
> >
> >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned
> >  by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount.
> 
> Think nfs. I access some nfs file as an unprivileged user. knfsd, by
> nature, would run as euid=0, uid=0, but it needs fsuid=jengelh for
> most permission logic to work as expected.

I don't think knfsd will ever want to call mount(2).

But yeah, I've been convinced, that using fsuid is the right thing to
do.

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/