lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cifs: handle termination of cifs oplockd kernel thread
From
Date
> Except that we don't have the concept of a mount owner at the VFS level
> right now, because everyone is adding stupid suid wrapper hacks instead
> of trying to fix the problems for real.

Having a mount owner is not a problem. Having a good policy for
accepting mounts is rather more so, according to some:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107705608603071&w=2

Just a little taste of what that policy would involve:

- global limit on user mounts
- possibly per user limit on mounts
- acceptable mountpoints (unlimited writablity is probably a good minimum)
- acceptable mount options (nosuid, nodev are obviously not)
- filesystems "safe" to mount by users

I'm not against something like that, but I'd like to hear other
people's opinion before trying to push a solution to mainline.

Thanks,
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-30 10:20    [W:0.046 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site