lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
    > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:18:52AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
    > > "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:
    > >
    <snip>

    > > > Any such change can cause Unionfs to oops, or stay
    > > > silent and even RESULT IN DATA LOSS.
    > >
    > > With a rather rough user interface ;)
    >
    > 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.

    Honza
    --
    Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
    SuSE CR Labs
    -
    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: 2007-01-09 13:47    [W:3.844 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site