On Wed 17-03-21 13:01:35, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:55 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu 04-03-21 13:29:19, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > Jan, > > > > > > These patches try to implement a minimal set and least controversial > > > functionality that we can allow for unprivileged users as a starting > > > point. > > > > > > The patches were tested on top of v5.12-rc1 and the fanotify_merge > > > patches using the unprivileged listener LTP tests written by Matthew > > > and another LTP tests I wrote to test the sysfs tunable limits [1]. > > > > Thanks. I've added both patches to my tree. > > Great! > I'll go post the LTP tests and work on the man page updates. > > BTW, I noticed that you pushed the aggregating for_next branch, > but not the fsnotify topic branch. > > Is this intentional? Not really, pushed now. Thanks for reminder. > I am asking because I am usually basing my development branches > off of your fsnotify branch, but I can base them on the unpushed branch. > > Heads up. I am playing with extra privileges we may be able to > allow an ns_capable user. > For example, watching a FS_USERNS_MOUNT filesystem that the user > itself has mounted inside userns. > > Another feature I am investigating is how to utilize the new idmapped > mounts to get a subtree watch functionality. This requires attaching a > userns to the group on fanotify_init(). > > <hand waving> > If the group's userns are the same or below the idmapped mount userns, > then all the objects accessed via that idmapped mount are accessible > to the group's userns admin. We can use that fact to filter events very > early based on their mnt_userns and the group's userns, which should be > cheaper than any subtree permission checks. > <\hand waving> Yeah, I agree this should work. Just it seems to me the userbase for this functionality will be (at least currently) rather limited. While full subtree watches would be IMO interesting to much more users. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
