> > > > > Also for bind-mount and remount operations the flag has to be propagated
> > > > > down its propagation tree. Otherwise a unpriviledged mount in a shared
> > > > > mount wont get reflected in its peers and slaves, leading to unidentical
> > > > > shared-subtrees.
> > > >
> > > > That's an interesting question. Do we want shared mounts to be
> > > > totally identical, including mnt_flags? It doesn't look as if
> > > > do_remount() guarantees that currently.
> > >
> > > Depends on the semantics of each of the flags. Some flags like of the
> > > read/write flag, would not interfere with the propagation semantics
> > > AFAICT. But this one certainly seems to interfere.
> >
> > That depends. Current patches check the "unprivileged submounts
> > allowed under this mount" flag only on the requested mount and not on
> > the propagated mounts. Do you see a problem with this?
>
> Don't see a problem if the flag is propagated to all peers and slave
> mounts.
>
> If not, I see a problem. What if the propagated mount has its flag set
> to not do un-priviledged mounts, whereas the requested mount has it
> allowed?
Then the mount is allowed.
It is up to the sysadmin/distro to design set up the propagations in a
way that this is not a problem.
I think it would be much less clear conceptually, if unprivileged
mounting would have to check propagations as well.
Miklos
-
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]
