![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi! > > > You have a choice of: 1) believe me that the current solution is > > > fine > > > > > 2) get down and try to understand the damn thing, and then come up > > > with technical arguments for/against it > > > > Argument is "it is **** ugly". > > Yeah, that's your opinion. Mine is that it's f****** beautiful ;). > > There are plenty of ugly things in Unix/Linux that you've become so > accustomed to, that they no longer seem ugly. Think about the sticky > bit on directories for example. That one was breaking assumptions > left and right when it got introduced, but people came to accept it, > because it's useful. Just for the record, I still consider sticky bit "slightly" ugly and nfs root squash "very" ugly. > > Your fuse.txt explains why it is not security hole. It does not > > explain why your interface is the best possible, and what alternative > > ways of "not security hole" exist. > > That's because I don't see any alternative. The "preventing user from > tracing root" and "preventing access to user's filesysem by root" must > come together. There's doesn't seem to be any other way. It is clear that we can't allow root (or anyone else) to access that filesystem. Infinite namespace is nice trap. > BTW, thanks for reading through fuse.txt :) You are welcome ;-). Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. - 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: 2005-06-22 11:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||