lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: unionfs unusable on multiuser systems (was Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation)


Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>>> That statement is meant to scare people away from modifying the lower fs :)
>>>> I tortured unionfs quite a bit, and it can oops but it takes some effort.
>>> But isn't it then potential DOS? If you happen to union two filesystems
>>> and an untrusted user has write access to both original filesystem and
>>> the union, then you say he'd be able to produce oops? That does not
>>> sound very secure to me... And if any secure use of unionfs requires
>>> limitting access to the original trees, then I think it's a good reason
>>> to implement it in unionfs itself. Just my 2 cents.
>> You mean somebody like, say, a perfectly innocent process working on the
>> NFS server or some other client that is oblivious to the existence of
>> unionfs stacks on your particular machine?
>> To me, this has always sounded like a showstopper for using unionfs with
>> a remote filesystem.
>
> Actually, it is worse than that. find / (and updatedb) *will* write to
> all the filesystems (atime).
>
> Expecting sysadmins to know/prevent this seems like expecting quite a
> lot from them. Sounds like a show stopper to me :-(....

a modified atime will not affect unionfs at all (at least from my
experience)
-
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: 2007-01-12 16:13    [W:0.132 / U:2.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site