On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 21:14 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > 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. I now realize you did, but I failed to catch it. sorry :-( > > 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. ok. if the ability for a normal user to mount something *indirectly* under a mount that has its 'allowusermnt flag' unset, is acceptable under the definition of 'allowusermnt', i guess my only choice is to accept it. :-) RP > > 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
