[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JT0ME-0003rT-9N@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:48:26 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
serue@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haveblue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall (v8)
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 06:33:13PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > c) just what is limited by that sysctl? AFAICS, rbind is allowed
> > > if mountpoint is on user vfsmount and it seems to create vfsmounts without
> > > eating into that limit just fine... What's the point of limiting the
> > > amount of vfsmounts marked user when you do not limit the number of vfsmount
> > > one can allocate?
> >
> > The limit is there, so that unprivileged users cannot create insane
> > number of mounts. It's just a safety thing, analogous to
> > /proc/sys/fs/file-max.
>
> Can't they? Looks like one can create any number of vfsmounts without
> getting more than one marked MNT_USER...
permit_mount() will set MS_SETUSER in flags, and do_loopback() will
set CL_SETUSER based on that flag.
> If you are trying to limit the number of superblocks (i.e. active instances
> of filesystems), then I'd say that vfsmounts make piss-poor proxies for
> those and it would be better to count the objects you really want to count...
I think I really want to limit vfsmounts. But not because these take
so much memory or anything, just to be safe against a stupid users
playing rbind and propagation, and things like that.
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