[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <491C0FA0.5070500@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:29:36 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC: fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, greg@...ah.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations
Hello,
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Not with '-oallow_other'. Consider the case that the caller invoked a
> non well formed ioctl, but since there's no way to know this we
> allowed the fuse server to tinker with the caller's address space
> _as if_ the ioctl was well formed.
Right, allow_other.
> So we should always make sure that the server has enough privilege to
> read/write the caller's memory, i.e. it can ptrace the caller.
>
> At this point we could allow any ioctls, not just well formed ones.
> But I don't want that for a different reason: if the possibility is
> there people will find new "innovative" uses for it and just get
> themselves into a big mess.
I don't really mind people doing strange things in userland as long as
it's safe but you're the maintainer. It's a bit strange to export the
feature only for CUSE, so I'm a little bit hesitant. I wanna make it
useful for both. So, at the kernel level, only well formed for FUSE and
everything goes for CUSE. Does that sound good enough?
--
tejun
--
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