lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 00/13] vfs: add helpers to check r/o bind mounts
From
Date
> > > > What is left is the guarantee, that the race-free r/o remounts will
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > always work and some obscure caller didn't forget to surround it with
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Why are those so important? Yes, if we have multiple vfs_() calls,
> > surround them with an extra want/drop pair.
>
> Which leaves you with the same need to audit all these suckers anyway.

Not really. Missing such calls would just make the *caller* buggy
(i.e. racy with remount r/o), but it would not make the *filesystem*
buggy. Big difference.

> I'm in principle fine with having such helper functions, *IF* they are
> not sold as providing all protection one needs,

I'm not selling them as that.

> *IF* you are not expecting
> to be able to fold all areas down into them and *IF* original ones are
> left intact.

Left intact for whom, specifically? Another question you've managed
to avoid answering.

> Modulo the like path_rename(), BTW - that one is just plain ugly API.

I'm all open to improvements.

> > > let alone removing the interface that doesn't require checks to be
> > > vfsmount-based for all users.
> >
> > What users? There are paractically _no_ other users. The ones that
> > there are (like reiserfs) should not be using them, and there are
> > already some patches cleaning that mess up.
>
> OK, explain me, in small words, WTF should something that wants to do
> operations on filesystem tree have a vfsmount. Slowly. And "r/o
> bind loses value if it can be bypassed" is a hogwash - fs methods are
> still there, so it *can* be bypassed just fine, thank you very much.

And we know what to do with such users.

> It's really up to caller. "But they won't be able to do open()" also
> doesn't fly - again, it's up to whoever writes particular piece of code.

I understand your theory. But it has zero practical significance.

IOW it doesn't matter that someone _may_ want to access the filesystem
without a vfsmount, if that someone doesn't exist.

Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-24 18:21    [W:0.080 / U:1.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site