[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal
    Richard Gooch writes ("Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal"):
    > Peter Benie writes:
    > >
    > > Alternatively, allow struct dentry and struct file to have a flag for
    > > read-only-filesystem.
    > No, I don't think that belongs in the dentry level. Read-only flags
    > belong in the superblock (for global effect) and per inode.

    I don't see how it is possible to implement what you are suggesting
    without every inode operation having to follow a chain of inodes
    before doing the real operation. It seems a lot of work for not much gain.

    > > I don't actually see the point of implementing a read-only loopback
    > > mount. There are already protection mechanisms in the kernel to
    > > prevent one user from writing to another user's files. If you need to
    > > run a program so that it cannot write to any files, just run the
    > > program under a different uid.
    > I guess you never notice the CERT security notices, then?

    Are you suggesting that on Linux, one user can write to another's
    files? (I'm assuming that people aren't stupid enough to have world
    writable files etc.) If so, that's a bug that should be fixed.

    If not, could you give a few more details rather than cryptic


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.020 / U:5.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site