From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Waychison Subject: Re: submount vs automount Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:25:55 -0400 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <40E04693.1010507@sun.com> References: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435E309@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> <40DC6F84.5020701@sun.com> <40E03CC2.7020601@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Paul Jakma Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org, raven@themaw.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Jakma wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Mike Waychison wrote: > >>> Why should the user on :0 be special? >> >> >> Cause this is the kind of policy I'd like to see :) > > > It doesnt make sense though. Eg, I remember in College the SPARCStation > labs (for some reason) each only had one workstation with a floppy > device. 9/10 the user using the floppy was not on :0.0. > > I can imagine something similar today with Zip/Jazz/DVR-RW+packet > UDF/$CHIC_REMOVABLE_MEDIA_DE_JOUR. > This policy has to be determined on a machine-by-machine basis. I think we can agree to that. I just chose to examine the :0 policy because doing so allows us to explore the implications of such an implementation. For example, after considering the 'owner' bit, I realize now that autofs would: - - still have to parse for such an option as it runs as root and would likely have to setuid to the user in question (so umount(8) still works). - - which implies that automount would need to know who triggered the mount, which isn't possible without a protocol jump. Going back to earlier discussion, when Jim Carter discussed the 'first-acccess / mount-owner' scenario, I think there has to be a compromise between security and functionality. Prescribing policies such as ':0' helps enforce some level of security access to the medium, while the 'no-policy policy' is just as bad as setups described above where your fd device file is o+rw. - -- Mike Waychison Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1 (650) 352-5299 voice 1 (416) 202-8336 voice http://www.sun.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA4EaTdQs4kOxk3/MRAmLJAJ9mrD33QJBrH63X6TAeWfAki9PMjACdEnZD 0gLuGLf4npMYOUPC8j+OzIA= =vveZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----