On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:14:07AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Except that we don't have the concept of a mount owner at the VFS level
> > right now, because everyone is adding stupid suid wrapper hacks instead
> > of trying to fix the problems for real.
>
> Having a mount owner is not a problem. Having a good policy for
> accepting mounts is rather more so, according to some:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107705608603071&w=2
>
> Just a little taste of what that policy would involve:
>
> - global limit on user mounts
I don't think we need that one.
> - possibly per user limit on mounts
Makes sense as an ulimit, that way the sysadmin can easily disable the
user mount feature aswell.
> - acceptable mountpoints (unlimited writablity is probably a good minimum)
Yupp.
> - acceptable mount options (nosuid, nodev are obviously not)
noexecis a bit too much, so the above look good.
> - filesystems "safe" to mount by users
what filesystem do you think is unsafe?
- virtual filesystems exporting kernel data are obviously safe as
they enforce permissions no matter who mounted them. (actually we'd
need to check for some odd mount options)
- block-based filesystems should be safe as long as the mounter has
access to the underlying block device
- network/userspace filesystems should be fine aswell
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
