From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:41:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20050411214123.GF32535@mail.shareable.org> References: <20050331200502.GA24589@infradead.org> <20050411114728.GA13128@infradead.org> <20050411153619.GA25987@nevyn.them.org> <20050411181717.GA1129@nevyn.them.org> <20050411192223.GA3707@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dan@debian.org, 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 mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:53407 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261949AbVDKVlm (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:41:42 -0400 To: Miklos Szeredi Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Miklos Szeredi wrote: > That is exactly the intended effect. If I'm at my work machine (where > I'm not an admin unfortunately) and I mount my home machine with sshfs > (because FUSE is installed fortunately :), then I bloody well don't > want the sysadmin or some automated script of his to go mucking under > the mountpoint. I think that would be _much_ nicer implemented as a mount which is invisible to other users, rather than one which causes the admin's scripts to spew error messages. Is the namespace mechanism at all suitable for that? It would also be nice to generalise and have virtual filesystems which are able to present different views to different users. Can FUSE do that already - is the userspace part told which user is doing each operation? With that, the desire for virtual filesystems which cannot be read by your sysadmin (by accident) is easy to satisfy - and that kind of mechanism would probably be acceptable to all. -- Jamie