Re: Proposal for the new mount options: no_symlink and no_new_symlink

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2020-11-13, Igor Zhbanov <izh1979@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I want to implement 2 new mount options: "no_symlink" and "no_new_symlink".
> The "nosymlink" option will act like "nodev", i.e. it will ignore all created
> symbolic links.

nosymlink has already been implemented (though the name "nosymfollow"
was used to match that corresponding FreeBSD mount option) by Ross
Zwisler and is in Al's tree[1].

> And the option "no_new_symlink" is for more relaxed configuration. It will
> allow to follow already existing symbolic links but forbid to create new.
> It could be useful to remount filesystem after system upgrade with this option.

This seems less generally useful than nosymfollow and it doesn't really
match any other inode-type-blocking mount options. You could also
implement this using existing facilities (seccomp and AppArmor), so I'm
not sure much is gained by making this a separate mount option.

[1]: https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/20200827201015.GC1236603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux