[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.0.999.0712191627220.14864@be1.lrz>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:55:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
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 ?
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
> > the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug",
>
> ... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps, with man 2 link?
What about reading POSIX which says
1264 [EXDEV]
1265 Improper link. A link to a file on another file system was attempted.
So if the link creates a file on NOT another filesystem (which is the point
of bind mounts), it should NOT return EXDEV.
Having an artificial boundary between different views to a fs may happen to
be a security feature if used with care, but most users do expect the
opposite and wonder why mv is needlessly slow. I'm not even sure if
defaulting to having a barrier is sane at all, but if people confuse
filesystems and mountpoints^W^W^W^Wuse this feature, they will depend on
this feature not changing:-)
--
"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just
bombed."
-U.S. Air Force Manual
--
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