Al Viro 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.
..
Thanks, Al. That makes sense for a multi-user system, so I'm happy.
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
The patch is simple enough when needed, though.
Cheers
--- old/fs/namei.c 2007-12-15 12:33:13.000000000 -0500
+++ linux/fs/namei.c 2007-12-18 22:41:19.000000000 -0500
@@ -2398,7 +2398,7 @@
if (error)
goto out;
error = -EXDEV;
- if (old_nd.mnt != nd.mnt)
+ if (old_nd.mnt->mnt_sb != nd.mnt->mnt_sb)
goto out_release;
new_dentry = lookup_create(&nd, 0);
error = PTR_ERR(new_dentry);
--
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]
