On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:17:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > I see your point. But then this is really not a security issue, but
> > > an "are you sure you want to format C:" style protection for the
> > > user's own sake. Adding a mount option (checked by the library) for
> > > this would be fine. E.g. with "mount_nonempty" it would not refuse to
> > > mount on a non-leaf dir, and README would document, that using this
> > > option might cause trouble. Otherwise the mount would be refused with
> > > a reference to the above option.
> >
> > IMO that should be a generic mount option, not FUSE specific.
> > Maybe the default could vary for each fs, but I'd vote against that.
Why a mount option at all?
Why not just a switch for the mount utility?
> The option only makes sense with the default being restrictive. But
> making that default for all filesystems can't be done, because that
> would immediately break thousands of existing installations.
I think it is acceptable to change this behaviour in a new version of
the mount utility. One could considder ignoring the restriction when
running with "-a" or when running as root - that would reduce or
eliminate the problems with the transition.
However, if this is implemented in mount itself, it is totally
orthogonal to the FUSE merge discussion.
--
Ragnar Kjørstad
Software Engineer
Scali - http://www.scali.com
Scaling the Linux Datacenter
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |