[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subjectunionfs unusable on multiuser systems (was Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation)

    > > > That statement is meant to scare people away from modifying the lower fs :)
    > > > I tortured unionfs quite a bit, and it can oops but it takes some effort.
    > > But isn't it then potential DOS? If you happen to union two filesystems
    > > and an untrusted user has write access to both original filesystem and
    > > the union, then you say he'd be able to produce oops? That does not
    > > sound very secure to me... And if any secure use of unionfs requires
    > > limitting access to the original trees, then I think it's a good reason
    > > to implement it in unionfs itself. Just my 2 cents.
    > You mean somebody like, say, a perfectly innocent process working on the
    > NFS server or some other client that is oblivious to the existence of
    > unionfs stacks on your particular machine?
    > To me, this has always sounded like a showstopper for using unionfs with
    > a remote filesystem.

    Actually, it is worse than that. find / (and updatedb) *will* write to
    all the filesystems (atime).

    Expecting sysadmins to know/prevent this seems like expecting quite a
    lot from them. Sounds like a show stopper to me :-(....
    Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
    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: 2007-01-12 13:07    [W:0.019 / U:29.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site