[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FUSE merging?
Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> However, a few things:
> - is there anything in the current implementation of the permission stuff
> which might tie our hands if it is later reimplemented? IOW: does the
> current FUSE user interface in any way lock us into the current FUSE
> implementation (fuse_allow_task())?
> - the fuse mount options don't seem to be documented
> - aren't we going to remove the nfs semi-server feature?
> - Frank points out that a user can send a sigstop to his own setuid(0)
> task and he intimates that this could cause DoS problems with FUSE. More
> details needed please?
> - I don't recall seeing an exhaustive investigation of how an
> unprivileged user could use a FUSE mount to implement DoS attacks against
> other users or against root.

You say

"If a sysadmin trusts the users enough, or can ensure through other
measures, that system processes will never enter non-privileged mounts,
it can relax the last limitation with a "user_allow_other" config
option. If this config option is set, the mounting user can add the
"allow_other" mount option which disables the check for other users'

What config option, where?

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-30 23:43    [W:0.194 / U:4.552 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site