Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:45:48 -0500 | From | Eric Van Hensbergen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits) |
| |
On 4/12/05, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote: > > I think that would be _much_ nicer implemented as a mount which is > > invisible to other users, rather than one which causes the admin's > > scripts to spew error messages. >> > > Is the namespace mechanism at all suitable for that? > > It is certainly the right tool for this. However currently private > namespaces are quite limited. The only sane usage I can think of is > that before mounting the user starts a shell with CLONE_NS, and does > the mount in this. However all the other programs he already has > running (editor, browser, desktop environment) won't be able to access > the mount. >
I'd like to second that I think private-namespaces are the right way to solve this sort of problem. It also helps not cluttering the global namespace with user-local mounts
> > Shared subtrees and more support in userspace tools is needed before > private namespaces can become really useful. >
I'd like to talk about this a bit more and start driving to a solution here. I've been looking at the namespace code quite a bit and was just about to dive in and start checking into adding/fixing certain aspects such as stackable namespaces, optional inheritence (changes in a parent namespace are reflected in the child but not vice-versa), etc.
One aspect I was thinking about here was a mount flag that would give you a new private namespace (if you didn't already have one) for the mount (and I guess that would impact any subsequent mounts from the user in that shell). Another option would be a 'newns' style system-call, but I'm generally against adding new system calls.
Shared subtrees are a tricky one. I know how we would handle it in V9FS, but not sure how well that would translate to others (essentially we'd re-export the subtree so other user's could mount it individually -- but that's a very Plan 9 solution and may not be what more UNIX-minded folks would want -- we also need to improve our own server infrastructure to more efficiently support such a re-export).
So, to sum up I think private namespaces is the right solution, and I'd rather put effort into making it more useful than work-around the fact that its not practical right now.
-eric - 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/
| |