Re: [CFT][PATCH 0/10] Making new mounts of proc and sysfs as safe as bind mounts

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

 



Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Can we please just get rid of this implicit nodev thing once and for all?  If it
> breaks some really weird /proc use case, then I think the right fix is to
> stop enforcing the nodev lock for the proc fully visible check.  After
> all, /proc doesn't contain useful device nodes anyway.

On second look I don't think that will actually cause issues in this
case.

I actually have a fix for the implicit nodev weirdness in my development
qeueue but it requires figuring out how to add s_user_ns to superblocks.
My last round of testing told me I was doing that wrong.

But if the implicit nodev is actually a problem I will definitely delay
this until I have that change ready to go as well.

> Other than that, the code here looks okay to me on brief inspection.

At a practical level I am concerned that enforcing things like noexec
and nosuid from the original normal global proc might cause problems for
things like sandstorm, lxc, and possibly libvirt-lxc.  So I would really
appreciate if people associated with those projects could test this and
tell me if I break things.

Other than my stupid refactor in my code for /proc/fs/nfsd that causes
the kernel to oops :(  Doh!

Eric

--
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




[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