From: Miklos Szeredi Don't require the "user_id=" and "group_id=" options for unprivileged mounts, but if they are present, verify them for sanity. Disallow the "allow_other" option for unprivileged mounts. Document new way of enabling unprivileged mounts for fuse. Document problems with unprivileged mounts. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi Acked-by: Serge Hallyn --- Index: linux/fs/fuse/inode.c =================================================================== --- linux.orig/fs/fuse/inode.c 2008-02-04 23:47:46.000000000 +0100 +++ linux/fs/fuse/inode.c 2008-02-04 23:48:06.000000000 +0100 @@ -359,6 +359,19 @@ static int parse_fuse_opt(char *opt, str d->max_read = ~0; d->blksize = FUSE_DEFAULT_BLKSIZE; + /* + * For unprivileged mounts use current uid/gid. Still allow + * "user_id" and "group_id" options for compatibility, but + * only if they match these values. + */ + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) { + d->user_id = current->uid; + d->user_id_present = 1; + d->group_id = current->gid; + d->group_id_present = 1; + + } + while ((p = strsep(&opt, ",")) != NULL) { int token; int value; @@ -387,6 +400,8 @@ static int parse_fuse_opt(char *opt, str case OPT_USER_ID: if (match_int(&args[0], &value)) return 0; + if (d->user_id_present && d->user_id != value) + return 0; d->user_id = value; d->user_id_present = 1; break; @@ -394,6 +409,8 @@ static int parse_fuse_opt(char *opt, str case OPT_GROUP_ID: if (match_int(&args[0], &value)) return 0; + if (d->group_id_present && d->group_id != value) + return 0; d->group_id = value; d->group_id_present = 1; break; @@ -603,6 +620,10 @@ static int fuse_fill_super(struct super_ if (!parse_fuse_opt((char *) data, &d, is_bdev)) return -EINVAL; + /* This is a privileged option */ + if ((d.flags & FUSE_ALLOW_OTHER) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) + return -EPERM; + if (is_bdev) { #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK if (!sb_set_blocksize(sb, d.blksize)) Index: linux/Documentation/filesystems/fuse.txt =================================================================== --- linux.orig/Documentation/filesystems/fuse.txt 2008-01-24 23:58:37.000000000 +0100 +++ linux/Documentation/filesystems/fuse.txt 2008-02-05 19:34:24.000000000 +0100 @@ -215,11 +215,87 @@ the filesystem. There are several ways - Abort filesystem through the FUSE control filesystem. Most powerful method, always works. -How do non-privileged mounts work? -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +Unprivileged fuse mounts +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Since the mount() system call is a privileged operation, a helper -program (fusermount) is needed, which is installed setuid root. +Possible problems with unprivileged fuse mounts +----------------------------------------------- + +FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged +users. This has also been verified in practice over many years, with +some distributions enabling unprivileged FUSE mounts by default. + +However, there are cases when unprivileged mounting a fuse filesystem +may be problematic, particularly for multi-user systems with untrusted +users. So here are few words of warning: + +Due to the design of the process freezer, a hanging (due to network +problems, etc) or malicious filesystem may prevent suspending to ram +or hibernation to succeed. This is not actually unique to FUSE, as +any hanging network filesystem will have the same affect. + +It is not always possible to use kill(2) (not even with SIGKILL) to +terminate a process using a FUSE filesystem (see section "Interrupting +filesystem operations" above). As a special case of the above, +killing a self-deadlocked FUSE process is not possible, and even +killall5 will not terminate it. + +If the above could pose a threat to the system, it is recommended, +that unprivileged fuse mounts are not enabled. + +Ways of enabling user mounts +---------------------------- + +Now there are two different ways of allowing unprivileged fuse mounts: + + 1) new way: unprivileged mount syscall + + 2) old way: suid-root fusermount utility + +Unprivileged mount syscall +-------------------------- + +To enable this do + + echo 1 > /proc/sys/fs/types/fuse/usermount_safe + +or add this line to /etc/sysctl.conf: + + fs.types.fuse.usermount_safe = 1 + +More information can be found in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt +under the /proc/sys/fs/types/ heading. Also see description of +nr_user_mounts and max_user_mounts under /proc/sys/fs. + +This doesn't in itself allow users to create mounts, first root needs +to create a mount owned by the user, under which the user can create +submounts. + +For example to enable submounts under /home/xyz/mnt do: + + mount --bind -ouser=xyz /home/xyz/mnt /home/xyz/mnt + +or add this line to /etc/fstab: + + /home/xyz/mnt /home/xyz/mnt none bind,user=xyz 0 0 + +And finally, make sure, that the user has read and write permissions +on /dev/fuse (installing fuse should have already taken care of this): + + chmod 0666 /dev/fuse + +or create a file under /etc/udev/rules.d/ containing: + + KERNEL=="fuse", MODE="0666" + +After this, mounting fuse filesystems under ~xyz/mnt should work, even +if fusermount is not installed setuid-root. + +Suid-root fusermount utility +---------------------------- + +[Some of the details described here apply to the new, unprivileged +mount system call as well]. The implication of providing non-privileged mounts is that the mount owner must not be able to use this capability to compromise the @@ -235,7 +311,7 @@ system. Obvious requirements arising fr other users' or the super user's processes How are requirements fulfilled? -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A) The mount owner could gain elevated privileges by either: @@ -300,7 +376,7 @@ How are requirements fulfilled? filesystem, since SIGSTOP can be used to get a similar effect. I think these limitations are unacceptable? -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a sysadmin trusts the users enough, or can ensure through other measures, that system processes will never enter non-privileged -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/