Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ?

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>]

Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> 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.

Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug", what about introducing
a mount option to allow link()ing?

--
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/