From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH] private mounts Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:21:56 -0400 Message-ID: <1114644116.9947.14.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20050426131943.GC2226@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20050426201411.GA20109@elf.ucw.cz> <20050427092450.GB1819@elf.ucw.cz> <20050427115754.GA8981@vagabond> <20050427123944.GA11020@vagabond> <20050427145842.GD28119@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Miklos Szeredi , bulb@ucw.cz, hch@infradead.org, jamie@shareable.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, 7eggert@gmx.de, Alexander Viro , Linux Filesystem Development , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:42138 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262093AbVD0XWP (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:22:15 -0400 To: Pavel Machek In-Reply-To: <20050427145842.GD28119@elf.ucw.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org on den 27.04.2005 Klokka 16:58 (+0200) skreiv Pavel Machek: > > > > And b) is _the_ most important feature IMO, so the argument for > > stripping it out has to be very good. > > Well, you'll have problems with suid programs suddenly not being able > to access files. nfs gets away with it, but nfs is perceived as > "broken" anyway... Really? The NFS security model is based on the principle that the administrator of the SERVER can override access permissions on his/her hardware. Pray tell why you think that is "broken"? Cheers, Trond -- Trond Myklebust