Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park <dongsu@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
