[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:0.099 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site