Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> However, a few things:
>
> - is there anything in the current implementation of the permission stuff
> which might tie our hands if it is later reimplemented? IOW: does the
> current FUSE user interface in any way lock us into the current FUSE
> implementation (fuse_allow_task())?
>
> - the fuse mount options don't seem to be documented
>
> - aren't we going to remove the nfs semi-server feature?
>
> - Frank points out that a user can send a sigstop to his own setuid(0)
> task and he intimates that this could cause DoS problems with FUSE. More
> details needed please?
>
> - I don't recall seeing an exhaustive investigation of how an
> unprivileged user could use a FUSE mount to implement DoS attacks against
> other users or against root.
You say
"If a sysadmin trusts the users enough, or can ensure through other
measures, that system processes will never enter non-privileged mounts,
it can relax the last limitation with a "user_allow_other" config
option. If this config option is set, the mounting user can add the
"allow_other" mount option which disables the check for other users'
processes."
What config option, where?
-
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]
