From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/18] cleanups and bug fix in do_loopback()
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:08:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1131563299.5400.392.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1EZPm4-0007R7-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 01:28, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > I see no other reason for wanting to prevent binds from detached
> > > mounts or other namespaces. It has been discussed that it would be a
> > > good _controlled_ way to send/receive mounts from other namespace
> > > without adding any complexity.
> >
> > AFAICT, the ability to bind across namespaces defeats the private-ness
> > property of per-process-namespaces.
>
> No. The privateness is guaranteed by proc_check_root(), which is
> similar, but not the same as check_mnt(), and wich restrict _access_
> to other namespaces.
> check_mnt() restricts operations on other namespaces if you _already_
> have access to said namespace. For example via a file descriptor sent
> between two processes in different namespaces.
Yes there is some contradiction of some sorts on this. private-ness
means that the namespace must _not_ be accesible to processes
in other namespace. But 'file descriptor sent between two processes in
different namespaces' seems to break that guarantee.
>
> Also with ptrace() you can still access other process's namespace, so
> proc_check_root() is also too strict (or ptrace() too lax).
same here.
RP
>
> Miklos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-09 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-08 2:01 [PATCH 2/18] cleanups and bug fix in do_loopback() Al Viro
2005-11-08 6:59 ` Miklos Szeredi
2005-11-08 8:46 ` Ram Pai
2005-11-08 9:28 ` Miklos Szeredi
2005-11-09 19:08 ` Ram Pai [this message]
2005-11-09 21:15 ` Miklos Szeredi
2005-11-10 0:51 ` Ram Pai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1131563299.5400.392.camel@localhost \
--to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).