[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1abwujw3s.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:10:31 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de, 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
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> writes:
>> 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.
Actually knfsd does call mount when it crosses a mount point on the nfs
server it generates an equivalent mount point in linux. At least I think
that is the what it is doing. It is very similar to our mount propagation
path.
However as a special case I don't think the permission checking is likely
to bite us there. It is worth double checking once we have the other details
ironed out.
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