Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag

[Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 21:14 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > As I said earlier, I see a case where two mounts that are peers of each
> > other can become un-identical if we dont propagate the "allowusermnt".
> > 
> > As a practical example.
> > 
> > /tmp and /mnt are peers of each other.
> > /tmp has its "allowusermnt" flag set, which has not been propagated
> > to /mnt.
> > 
> > now a normal-user mounts an ext2 file system under /tmp at /tmp/1
> > 
> > unfortunately the mount wont appear under /mnt/1 
> 
> Argh, that is not true.  That's what I've been trying to explain to
> you all along.

I now realize you did, but I failed to catch it. sorry :-(

> 
> The propagation will be done _regardless_ of the flag.  The flag is
> only checked for the parent of the _requested_ mount.  If it is
> allowed there, the mount, including any propagations are allowed.  If
> it's denied, then obviously it's denied everywhere.
> 
> > and in case if you allow the mount to appear under /mnt/1, you will
> > break unpriviledge mounts semantics which promises: a normal user will
> > not be able to mount at a location that does not allow user-mounts.
> 
> No, it does not promise that.  The flag just promises, that the user
> cannot _request_ a mount on the parent mount.

ok. if the ability for a normal user to mount something *indirectly*
under a mount that has its 'allowusermnt flag' unset, 
is acceptable under the definition of 'allowusermnt', i guess my only
choice is to accept it. :-)

RP

> 
> Miklos

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/