Re: [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:40 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Use FS_SAFE for "fuse" fs type, but not for "fuseblk".
> 
> FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged
> users.  This has also been verified in practice over many years.

How does FUSE do this?

There are obvious cases like crafting a filesystem which has setuid executables
or world-writeable device nodes or whatever.  I'm sure there are lots of other
cases.

Where is FUSE's implementation of all this protection described?
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts
    • From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 0/8] mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall (v4)
    • From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
  • [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts
    • From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 7/8] allow unprivileged mounts
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH][RFC] i2c: adds support for i2c bus on 8xx
• Previous by thread: [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 8/8] allow unprivileged fuse mounts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]