[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3429.1531467024@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:30:24 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/32] vfs: syscall: Add fsopen() to prepare for superblock creation [ver #9]
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > Also you can't currently directly create a bind mount from userspace as you
> > can only bind from another path point - which you may not be able to access
> > (either by permission failure or because it's not in your mount namespace).
> >
>
> Are you trying to preserve the magic bind semantics with the new API?
No, I'm pointing out that you can't emulate this by doing a bind mount from
userspace if you can't access the thing you're binding from.
Now, we could create a syscall that just picks up an extant superblock using a
device and attaches it to a mount for you, but that would have to be at least
partially parameterised - which would be very fs-dependent - so that it can
know whether or not you're allowed to create another mount to that sb.
What you're talking about is emulating sget() in userspace - when we have to
do it in the kernel anyway if we still offer mount(2).
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists