[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207222551.GA17206@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:25:51 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Dongsu Park <dongsu@...ocode.com>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...glemail.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Phil Estes <estesp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] shiftfs: uid/gid shifting bind mount
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:01:29PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Project id's are not exactly "subtree" semantic, but inheritance semantics,
> which is not the same when non empty directories get their project id changed.
> Here is a recap:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/623835/
Yes - but if we abuse them for containers we could refine the semantics
to simply not allow change of project ids from inside containers
based on say capabilities.
> I guess we should define the semantics for the required sub-tree marking,
> before we can talk about solutions.
Good plan.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists