[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1J4zCp-0003fj-5I@be1.7eggert.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:43:26 +0100
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ?
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> > Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
>> > of the same underlying filesystem ?
>>
>> Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
>
> PS: that had been discussed quite a few times, but to avoid searches:
> consider e.g. mount --bind /tmp /tmp; now you've got a situation when
> users can't create links to elsewhere no root fs, even though they
> have /tmp writable to them. Similar technics works for other isolation
> needs - basically, you can confine rename/link to given subtree. IOW,
> it's a deliberate feature. Note that you can bind a bunch of trees
> into chroot and get predictable restrictions regardless of how the
> stuff might get rearranged a year later in the main tree, etc.
Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug", what about introducing
a mount option to allow link()ing?
--
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