linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] struct pid-ify autofs4

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87625z531j.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:59:36 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	autofs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	serge.hallyn@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] struct pid-ify autofs4

> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> writes:
> 
> > Yeah, the problem with that is that "autofs doesn't work if containers
> > are used" is ill defined since there are use cases where it does, I
> > believe. At the very least, ill defined in my view of things.

Customer says:

 "There is no interaction between host and the conatainer.  The host use
  only his own automount and each containers used automount in their
  container."

I think it's a pretty clearly defined use case.  And one which automount
could easily support since the only requirement is that all namespaces
are treated equally.

But I agree that adding safeguards against cases which don't have such
easily defined semantics (such as triggers from several different
namespaces).

I'll post updated patches.

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/