Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:23:06 -0500 | From | Eric Van Hensbergen <> | Subject | Re: -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/
| |