[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:0.099 / U:3.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site