[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOssrKeSTY1pAhpmegFWdGh7irNbT4veG5JaYFj8Q1JjMynadw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:28:12 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
To: Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] fs: Allow CAP_SYS_ADMIN in s_user_ns to freeze and
thaw filesystems
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io> wrote:
> From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
>
> The user in control of a super block should be allowed to freeze
> and thaw it. Relax the restrictions on the FIFREEZE and FITHAW
> ioctls to require CAP_SYS_ADMIN in s_user_ns.
Why is this required for unprivileged fuse?
Fuse doesn't support freeze, so this seems to make no sense in the
context of this patchset.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists