[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y3jssisw.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:53:19 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc: Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] FUSE mounts from non-init user namespaces
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io> wrote:
>
>> Patches 1-2 deal with an additional flag of lookup_bdev() to check for
>> additional inode permission.
>
> fuse_blk is less suitable for unprivileged mounting than plain fuse.
> fusermount doesn't allow mounting fuse_blk unprivileged, so there's
> little data about that usecase (IIRC ntfs3g guys did that, or at least
> tried to do it, but I don't remember the details).
>
> As such, I think we should leave it out of the initial version. Which
> means you can drop patches 1-2 from this series. Unless there's a
> strong use case for this. In which case we should look hard at the
> differences between fuse_blk and fuse and how that affects
> unprivileged operation. There are a few assumptions about fuse_blk
> filesystem being more "well behaved", I think.
Especially to start with I am fine with that.
It makes a lot of sense to get the obvious cases first.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists