linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/24] Read-only bind 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070919150659.597f0d8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:06:59 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] Read-only bind mounts

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:56:27 -0700
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 14:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:44:18 +0100
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > If we can't pull the entire series into -mm, can we just put the
> > > > first three patches for now?  They can stand on their own.
> > > 
> > > Yes, they're kinda a series of their own.  But I still think we really
> > > want this in -mm.  As we've seen on the kernel summit there's a pretty
> > > desparate need for it.  And there's not many changes in this area in
> > > -mm, maybe the unprivilegued mounts.  I'd personally prioritize the
> > > r/o bindmounts over them as they're more needed and we need more reviewing
> > > of the unprivilegued mounts (I'll try to come back to that soon).
> > 
> > What's the situation on unprivileged mounts?  iirc, it's all a bit stuck.
> > 
> > If unpriv-mounts code isn't going to go into mainline ahead of r/o bind
> > mounts then it'd make a big mess to prepare the r/o bind mount patches on
> > top of unprivileged mounts.
> > 
> > It sounds like a better approach would be for me to merge the r/o bind
> > mounts code and to drop (or maybe rework) the unprivileged mounts patches
> 
> I actually don't think they collided too much.  There were a couple of
> patches, like maybe 2 or 3 that needed any futzing at all.  
> 
> I'll cook up a set straight on top of mainline if that helps.
> 

That sounds good, thanks.

There may be collisions with unionfs too, but if that happens in a
non-trivial way I may just drop unionfs - it doesn't look like it's
going to get there in its present form.
-
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/