On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@xxxxxxxxxx): > > Serge, thanks for spotting this: it looks indeed a nasty hole! I also > > agree about the solution. > > Are you implementing it, or did you want me to? I'll implement it. > > But yeah, we should think this over very carefully. Especially > > interaction with mount propagation, which has very complicated and > > sometimes rather counter-intuitive semantics. > > I know we discussed before about whether a propagated mount from a > non-user mount to a user mount should end up being owned by the user > or not. I don't recall (and am not checking the code at the moment > as your tree is sitting elsewhere) whether we mark the propagated > tree with the right nosuid and nodev flags, or whether we call it > a user mount or not. If the destination is a user mount, then - the propagated mount(s) will be owned by the same user as the destination - the propagated mount(s) will inherit 'nosuid' from the destination I remember also thinking about 'nodev' and why it doesn't need similar treatment to 'nosuid'. The reasoning was that 'nodev' is safe as long as permissions are enforced, namespace shuffling cannot make it insecure. Does that sound correct? Thanks, 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
