From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] private mounts Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:38:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20050426103859.GA31468@infradead.org> References: <1114445923.4480.94.camel@localhost> <20050425191015.GC28294@mail.shareable.org> <20050426091921.GA29810@infradead.org> <20050426093628.GA30208@infradead.org> <20050426030010.63757c8c.akpm@osdl.org> <20050426100412.GA30762@infradead.org> <20050426031414.260568b5.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , miklos@szeredi.hu, jamie@shareable.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, 7eggert@gmx.de, bulb@ucw.cz, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:10673 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261469AbVDZKjT (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:39:19 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050426031414.260568b5.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:14:14AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > That's one of the major points of FUSE, isn't it? So that unprivileged > users can do interesting things. > > Or are you saying that that's a desirable objective, but it should be > implemented differently? It's a desirable objective, but the implementation is wrong. If we have a user mount that must be known to the VFS so that the VFS can enforce the right restrictions instead of leaving various crude hacks in lowlevel filesystem drivers. Especially as fuse isn't the only filesystem for which this makes sense - smbfs or v9fs want the same features aswell