On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 02:17 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 13:30 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 14:24 +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > It really doesn't matter whether there is a symlink or not. automounters > > > > should _not_ be trying to create directories on any filesystem other > > > > than the autofs filesystem itself. > > > > > > Yes, I agree. > > > > Not really. > > > > What about multiple recursive bind mounts? > > What about the initial directory for the autofs mount itself? > > > > What about the case where a admin expects autofs to create these > > directories for map entries that have multiple offsets. > > > > As I've said before in version 5 I'm saying that it is a requirement > > that the the directories already exist in this case but in version 4 > > people may have become accustomed to this behavior and right or wrong > > this type of change shouldn't be made without warning to the users or > > possibly not made at all. > > What part of the phrase "security risk" are you failing to understand? > If anybody out there is actually relying on having an automounter daemon > that is running with root privileges try to create directories on remote > servers on the basis of the output of the 'showmount' command, then they > need saving from themselves. > Haha ... point taken. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
