lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 07/10] unprivileged mounts: add sysctl tunable for "safe" property
From
Date
> > > What do you think about doing this only if FS_SAFE is also set,
> > > so for instance at first only FUSE would allow itself to be
> > > made user-mountable?
> > >
> > > A safe thing to do, or overly intrusive?
> >
> > It goes somewhat against the "no policy in kernel" policy ;). I think
> > the warning in the documentation should be enough to make sysadmins
> > think twice before doing anything foolish:
>
> Warning in which documentation? A sysadmin considering setting fs_safe
> for ext2 or xfs isn't going to be looking at fuse docs, which I think is
> what you're talking about. Are you going to add a file under
> Documentation/filesystems?

Yes, I meant documentation of the new sysctl tunable in
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt:

> Index: linux/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt 2008-01-16 13:25:07.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt 2008-01-16 13:25:09.000000000 +0100
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ Table of Contents
> 2.13 /proc/<pid>/oom_score - Display current oom-killer score
> 2.14 /proc/<pid>/io - Display the IO accounting fields
> 2.15 /proc/<pid>/coredump_filter - Core dump filtering settings
> + 2.16 /proc/sys/fs/types - File system type specific parameters
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Preface
> @@ -2283,4 +2284,21 @@ For example:
> $ echo 0x7 > /proc/self/coredump_filter
> $ ./some_program
>
> +2.16 /proc/sys/fs/types/ - File system type specific parameters
> +----------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +There's a separate directory /proc/sys/fs/types/<type>/ for each
> +filesystem type, containing the following files:
> +
> +usermount_safe
> +--------------
> +
> +Setting this to non-zero will allow filesystems of this type to be
> +mounted by unprivileged users (note, that there are other
> +prerequisites as well).
> +
> +Care should be taken when enabling this, since most
> +filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged mounting
> +in mind.
> +
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Do you think this is enough? Or do we need something more, to prevent
sysadmin inadvertently setting this for an unsafe filesystem?

Thanks,
Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-23 00:05    [W:0.479 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site