| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <E1JF4ne-0003HO-CG@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:43:10 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: serue@...ibm.com CC: miklos@...redi.hu, accensi@...il.com, serue@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, viro@....linux.org.uk, ebiederm@...ssion.com, kzak@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org, util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 9/9] unprivileged mounts: add "no submounts" flag > > > Why not "nosubmnt"? > > > > Why not indeed. Maybe I should try to use my brain sometime. > > Well it really should have 'user' or 'unpriv' in the name > somewhere. 'nosubmnt' is more confusing than 'nomnt' because > it no submounts really sounds like a reasonable thing in > itself... I slept on it, and I still think 'nosubmnt' might be the best compromise. Obviously the superuser has privileges, that override what is normally allowed, and we don't find it strange when a read-only file is happily being written by root. It may feel wrong in the context of mounts, because we are so used to mounts being privileged-only. Objections? Once this goes in, it will stay the same forever, so now is the time to express any doubts... Thanks, 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists