On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Seth Forshee
<seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 07:58:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 07:25 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> > Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Serge H. Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > fs/fuse/inode.c | 4 ++--
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c
>> > index 5e00a6a76049..6522926b14e4 100644
>> > --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
>> > +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
>> > @@ -1212,7 +1212,7 @@ static void fuse_kill_sb_anon(struct super_block *sb)
>> > static struct file_system_type fuse_fs_type = {
>> > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> > .name = "fuse",
>> > - .fs_flags = FS_HAS_SUBTYPE,
>> > + .fs_flags = FS_HAS_SUBTYPE | FS_USERNS_MOUNT,
>> > .mount = fuse_mount,
>> > .kill_sb = fuse_kill_sb_anon,
>> > };
>> > @@ -1244,7 +1244,7 @@ static struct file_system_type fuseblk_fs_type = {
>> > .name = "fuseblk",
>> > .mount = fuse_mount_blk,
>> > .kill_sb = fuse_kill_sb_blk,
>> > - .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_HAS_SUBTYPE,
>> > + .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_HAS_SUBTYPE | FS_USERNS_MOUNT,
>>
>> I think it's decision time -- if these patches are applied, then FUSE
>> will be the first filesystem for which userns nodev behavior matters for
>> security, so applying this patch will enshrine an API decision.
>>
>> I would very much prefer to make this patch depend on this:
>>
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/2686c32f00b14148379e8cfee9c028c794d4aa1a.1407974494.git.luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> That change will require that anyone who tries to mount one of these
>> things explicitly requests MS_NODEV instead of keeping the current
>> behavior of implicitly setting MS_NODEV and possibly confusing user code
>> that tries to remount.
>>
>> If you like my patch, feel free to fold it in to your series, or Eric
>> can apply it directly (pretty please).
>>
>> For background, with your patches as is, if you mount a FUSE fs and then
>> remount it with identical flags, the remount is likely to fail.
>
> I discussed this with Eric during LinuxCon NA ... as I recall he was
> undecided about whether or not to use your patch at the time. I do
> prefer an explicit failure over implicitly adding MS_NODEV, but it's not
> up to me. I do agree though that we should make a decision before
> merging the fuse patches, I was just assuming that the decision was
> already made.
As far as I know, no decision has been made. I discussed it with Eric
at LinuxCon NA, too. Too bad we didn't meet there.
Hopefully your patches will convince him to ack my patch :)
--Andy
--
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
