Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> > Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
>> > of the same underlying filesystem ?
>>
>> Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
>
> PS: that had been discussed quite a few times, but to avoid searches:
> consider e.g. mount --bind /tmp /tmp; now you've got a situation when
> users can't create links to elsewhere no root fs, even though they
> have /tmp writable to them. Similar technics works for other isolation
> needs - basically, you can confine rename/link to given subtree. IOW,
> it's a deliberate feature. Note that you can bind a bunch of trees
> into chroot and get predictable restrictions regardless of how the
> stuff might get rearranged a year later in the main tree, etc.
Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug", what about introducing
a mount option to allow link()ing?
--
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]
