Re: [PATCH] private mounts

[Ram <linuxram@us.ibm.com>]

On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 23:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > 
> > > ... is the same as for the same question with "set of mounts" replaced
> > > with "environment variables".
> > 
> > Not quite.
> > 
> > After changing environment variables in .profile, you can copy them to
> > other shells using ". ~/.profile".
> > 
> > There is no analogous mechanism to copy namespaces.
> > 
> > I agree with you that Miklos' patch is not the right way to do it.
> 
> I'm not sure that it is either.  But, see bellow...
> 
> > Much better is the proposal to make namespaces first-class objects,
> > that can be switched to.  Then users can choose to have themselves a
> > namespace containing their private mounts, if they want it, with
> > login/libpam or even a program run from .profile switching into it.
> 
> It would be good if it could be done just in libpam.  But that would
> require every libpam user to call into it after the fork() or
> whatever, so unshare() and join_namespace() don't mess up the server
> running environment.
> 
> If not, then it would mean modifying numerous programs, having these
> modifications integrated, then having distributions pick up the
> changes, etc.  I would imagine quite a long cycle for this to be
> acutally useful.
> 
> > While users can be allowed to create their own namespaces which affect
> > the path traversal of their _own_ directories, it's important that the
> > existence of such namespaces cannot affect path traversal of other
> > directories such as /etc, or /autofs/whatever - and that creation of
> > namespaces by a user cannot prevent the unmounting of a non-user
> > filesystem either.
> > 
> > The way to do that is shared subtrees, or something along those lines.
> 
> Yes, but we would be achieving essentially the same as my patch, just
> with more complexity.  And my patch achieves what FUSE does in 2 lines
> of code, namely hide the mount from other users by returning -EACCESS
> in case fsuid does not mach the mount owner.
> 

I have not yet sure how invisible mount can be used to solve the FUSE
problem.  

Again my understanding of the basic requirement of FUSE is:

1. A user being able to setup his own VFS-mount environment which
  	 is only visible to the user. 
2. The same user being able to see exactly the same VFS-mount  
	environment from any login session.

RP

> I aggree that your solution is more flexible, but it's also hugely
> more complex.  If somebody want's to implement it, fine.  But don't
> expect me to do it, unless some company hires my for fs development
> (hint, hint ;) 



> 
> Thanks,
> Miklos
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html