On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 09:26 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Ian Kent (raven@xxxxxxxxxx): > > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 12:48 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in > > > > > >> /etc/fstab > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security > > > > > implication of allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood. > > > > > > > > And especially so since there is no way for a filesystem module to veto > > > > such requests. > > > > > > The filesystem can't veto initial mounts based on destination either. > > > I don't think it's up to the filesystem to police bind/move mounts in > > > any way. > > > > But if a filesystem can't or the developer thinks that it shouldn't for > > some reason, support bind/move mounts then there should be a way for the > > Can you list some valid reasons why an fs could care where it is > mounted? The only thing I could think of is a stackable fs, but it > shouldn't care whether it is overlay-mounted or not. For my part, autofs and autofs4. Moving or binding isn't valid. I tried to design that limitation out version 5 but wasn't able to. In time I probably can but couldn't continue to support older versions. > > thanks, > -serge > > > filesystem to tell the kernel that. > > > > Surely a filesystem is in a good position to be able to decide if a > > mount request "for it" should be allowed to continue based on it's "own > > situation and capabilities". > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > - > > 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 - 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
