> As I said earlier, I see a case where two mounts that are peers of each > other can become un-identical if we dont propagate the "allowusermnt". > > As a practical example. > > /tmp and /mnt are peers of each other. > /tmp has its "allowusermnt" flag set, which has not been propagated > to /mnt. > > now a normal-user mounts an ext2 file system under /tmp at /tmp/1 > > unfortunately the mount wont appear under /mnt/1 Argh, that is not true. That's what I've been trying to explain to you all along. The propagation will be done _regardless_ of the flag. The flag is only checked for the parent of the _requested_ mount. If it is allowed there, the mount, including any propagations are allowed. If it's denied, then obviously it's denied everywhere. > and in case if you allow the mount to appear under /mnt/1, you will > break unpriviledge mounts semantics which promises: a normal user will > not be able to mount at a location that does not allow user-mounts. No, it does not promise that. The flag just promises, that the user cannot _request_ a mount on the parent mount. Miklos - 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
