[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: FUSE merging?
    > However, a few things:
    > - is there anything in the current implementation of the permission stuff
    > which might tie our hands if it is later reimplemented? IOW: does the
    > current FUSE user interface in any way lock us into the current FUSE
    > implementation (fuse_allow_task())?

    No. This thing is above the userspace interface and completely
    independent. Either a task is allowed, and then the request goes
    through to the interface. Or if it's not, the request is stopped
    right there, and never reaches the userspace interface.

    > - the fuse mount options don't seem to be documented

    True. I'll send a patch (they are documented in the README of the
    fuse distribution).

    > - aren't we going to remove the nfs semi-server feature?

    I leave the decision to you ;) It's a separate independent patch
    already (fuse-nfs-export.patch).

    > - Frank points out that a user can send a sigstop to his own setuid(0)
    > task and he intimates that this could cause DoS problems with FUSE. More
    > details needed please?

    Will follow up in Franks answer.

    > - I don't recall seeing an exhaustive investigation of how an
    > unprivileged user could use a FUSE mount to implement DoS attacks against
    > other users or against root.

    Here's a description of a theoretical DoS scenario:


    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: 2005-07-01 08:40    [W:0.028 / U:24.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site