On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 09:35:42PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > Searching for "rename bint mount exdev" shows that failure with EXDEV > seems somewhat unintuitive behaviour. Allow users to bypass > this restriction with "-o noexdev" flag if the source of operation is on > such mount. > > Keep old semantics default so "mount --bind /tmp /tmp" works. > > "mount --bind" will inherit "noexdev" flag from parent mount but it can > be cleared with mount(MS_REMOUNT) so it is possible to create exclave > with regular mount point crossing rules inside mount with relaxed mount > point rules. NAK. At least until you bother to explore the consequences of such rename for vfsmounts involved. Hint: look at the semantics of .. and mountpoint crossing. It's a bloody bad idea; we have to cope with attackers who'd managed to do that kind of rename using a mount of a bigger subtree, but that's "cope" - it's not a normal situation and the price is non-trivial. ... and before you go into "if you don't want it, don't mount that way, what's the problem?", consider our, ah, noble adversaries who'd been very clear regarding their treatment of any optional features. I do _not_ want to end up with the situation when systemd-infested distributions run the setups that use this thing and any reports along the lines "it's trivial to degrade the performance on that setup" get bounced our way. With "no, we are not going to stop depending on that feature; if the kernel folks had a problem with it, they shouldn't have merged it in the first place" tacked on top of those reports. -- 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
