[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080904161729.GA26579@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:17:29 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hch@...radead.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unprivileged mounts git tree
Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Are you going to revert the change forcing CL_SLAVE for
> > > !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)? I don't think we want that - I think that
> > > *within* a set of user mounts, propagation should be safe, right?
> > >
> > > Will you be able to do this soon? If not, should we just do the part
> > > returning -EPERM when turning a shared mount into a user mount?
> >
> > OK, let's do that first and the tricky part (propagation vs. user
> > mounts) later. Will push after I've tested it.
>
> Here it is:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git unprivileged-mounts
but you're still doing
if (IS_MNT_SHARED(old_nd.path.mnt) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
goto out;
shouldn't it be something like
if (IS_MNT_SHARED(old_nd.path.mnt) && (old_nd.path.mnt & MNT_USER))
goto out;
?
> I don't know what's next, this patchset has been in and out of -mm for
> as long as I can remember, but it hasn't generated much interest
> outside the two of us :)
>
> I do think this is an important feature though, even if not as sexy as
> some other things.
>
> Al? Is there any chance of this making it to 2.6.28?
>
> 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