lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] cifs: handle termination of cifs oplockd kernel thread
    From
    Date
    On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 03:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > >
    > > Having a mount owner is not a problem.
    Perhaps some day "mount owner" might be more complex than simply the
    uid_t of the owner (I don't know if there will be future cases in which
    you might want to check the gid_t at mount time or some SELinux specific
    security context), but I would prefer that mnt_uid be stored in the
    superblock so I could get rid of those few lines of code in cifs, and
    that is a fairly non-controversial start. Coming up with the policy
    as Miklos and Christoph were suggesting may be doable in small stages.

    > Having a good policy for
    > > accepting mounts is rather more so, according to some:
    > >
    > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107705608603071&w=2
    > >
    > > Just a little taste of what that policy would involve:
    > >
    > > - global limit on user mounts
    >
    > I don't think we need that one.

    agreed

    >
    > > - possibly per user limit on mounts
    >
    > Makes sense as an ulimit, that way the sysadmin can easily disable the
    > user mount feature aswell.
    >

    agreed.

    > > - acceptable mountpoints (unlimited writablity is probably a good minimum)
    >
    > Yupp.
    Yes, although not sure what unlimited means here since the filesystem
    you are mounting will often forbid writes (at the server)

    >
    > > - acceptable mount options (nosuid, nodev are obviously not)
    >
    > noexecis a bit too much, so the above look good.

    There are cases in which adding noexec might make sense as a system
    policy for user mounts, but the typical case in which user mounts are
    needed are for home directories over the network or equivalent in which
    noexec makes it tough for them to be very useful. nosuid and nodev on
    the other hand should be restricted and users are used to this already
    since they are the two flags that are added by mount.cifs if a non-root
    user mounts and the admin has configured mount.cifs to allow user
    mounts, so that would be consistent.

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-30 15:59    [W:4.780 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site