Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:29:52 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cifs: handle termination of cifs oplockd kernel thread |
| |
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:14:07AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > 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
I don't think we need that one.
> - possibly per user limit on mounts
Makes sense as an ulimit, that way the sysadmin can easily disable the user mount feature aswell.
> - acceptable mountpoints (unlimited writablity is probably a good minimum)
Yupp.
> - acceptable mount options (nosuid, nodev are obviously not)
noexecis a bit too much, so the above look good.
> - filesystems "safe" to mount by users
what filesystem do you think is unsafe?
- virtual filesystems exporting kernel data are obviously safe as they enforce permissions no matter who mounted them. (actually we'd need to check for some odd mount options)
- block-based filesystems should be safe as long as the mounter has access to the underlying block device
- network/userspace filesystems should be fine aswell
- 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/
| |