From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:27:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20050411182725.GA1788@nevyn.them.org> References: <20050325095838.GA9471@infradead.org> <20050331112427.GA15034@infradead.org> <20050331200502.GA24589@infradead.org> <20050411114728.GA13128@infradead.org> <20050411182257.GC32535@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Return-path: Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.172.17]:51137 "EHLO nevyn.them.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261871AbVDKS11 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:27:27 -0400 To: Jamie Lokier Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050411182257.GC32535@mail.shareable.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:22:57PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > 1) Only allow mount over a directory for which the user has write > > access (and is not sticky) > > Seems good - but why not sticky? Mounting a user filesystem in > /tmp/user-xxx/my-mount-point seems not unreasonable - provided the > administrator can delete the directory (which is possible with > detachable mount points). Because then they could mount over /tmp. "and (is not sticky || is owned by the user)" may be more appropriate. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC