[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: DoS with unprivileged mounts
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman
<> wrote:
> Part of me does prefer the semantics Andy has suggested where instead of
> unmounting things we have something like a skeleton of the mount tree
> unioned with dcaches of the filesystems themselves. With "struct
> mountpoint" we are amazing close to that already.
> A mount skeleton would allow us to always remove and rename directories
> and files without really caring, about what mounts were present.
> Probably with just a quick lookup to see if we need to set

Yes, we could have a separate dentry tree just for anchoring mounts
and we could make a union with the real dentry tree. But implementing
that in a low overhead manner is not trivial. Anchoring mounts on
real dentries is *rather* convenient. And yes, we only actually need
the skeleton dentries when the real ones disappear, but that doesn't
make the implementation any simpler.

> The big practical problem I can see with MNT_VOLATILE is mount points in
> shared directories like /tmp but without the sticky set. At which point
> it would be possible to delete another users mount points. Perhaps we
> need restrictions on where a user can mount.

I think if user X mounts something on /tmp/foo owned by user Y and
user Y removes /tmp/foo then that shouldn't really surprise user X. I
don't see this an issue.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-15 11:41    [W:0.212 / U:10.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site