[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits)
    On 4/12/05, Miklos Szeredi <> wrote:
    > > I think that would be _much_ nicer implemented as a mount which is
    > > invisible to other users, rather than one which causes the admin's
    > > scripts to spew error messages.
    > > Is the namespace mechanism at all suitable for that?
    > It is certainly the right tool for this. However currently private
    > namespaces are quite limited. The only sane usage I can think of is
    > that before mounting the user starts a shell with CLONE_NS, and does
    > the mount in this. However all the other programs he already has
    > running (editor, browser, desktop environment) won't be able to access
    > the mount.

    I'd like to second that I think private-namespaces are the right way
    to solve this sort of problem. It also helps not cluttering the
    global namespace with user-local mounts

    > Shared subtrees and more support in userspace tools is needed before
    > private namespaces can become really useful.

    I'd like to talk about this a bit more and start driving to a solution
    here. I've been looking at the namespace code quite a bit and was
    just about to dive in and start checking into adding/fixing certain
    aspects such as stackable namespaces, optional inheritence (changes in
    a parent namespace are reflected in the child but not vice-versa),

    One aspect I was thinking about here was a mount flag that would give
    you a new private namespace (if you didn't already have one) for the
    mount (and I guess that would impact any subsequent mounts from the
    user in that shell). Another option would be a 'newns' style
    system-call, but I'm generally against adding new system calls.

    Shared subtrees are a tricky one. I know how we would handle it in
    V9FS, but not sure how well that would translate to others
    (essentially we'd re-export the subtree so other user's could mount it
    individually -- but that's a very Plan 9 solution and may not be what
    more UNIX-minded folks would want -- we also need to improve our own
    server infrastructure to more efficiently support such a re-export).

    So, to sum up I think private namespaces is the right solution, and
    I'd rather put effort into making it more useful than work-around the
    fact that its not practical right now.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-17 19:49    [W:0.022 / U:6.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site