lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status (fuse)
> >
> > I'm asking you to expand on what the problems would be if we were to
> > enhance the namespace code as suggested.
>
> OK, what I was thinking, is that the user could create a new
> namespace, that has all the filesystems remounted 'nosuid'. This
> wouldn't need any new kernel infrastructure, just a suid-root program
> (e.g. newns_nosuid), that would do a clone(CLONE_NEWNS), then
> recursively remount everything 'nosuid' in the new namespace. Then
> restore the user's privileges, and exec a shell.
>

I'm confused why everything has to be remounted nosuid. I understand
enforcing synthetics to be mounted nosuid, but not the rest of the
file systems. I thought all the problems revolving around the private
namespace solution where the FUSE team's desire to have per-user
namespace and/or per-session namespace versus per-process namespace.

-eric
-
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 14:27    [W:0.448 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site