From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH] private mounts Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:31:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20050427143126.GB1957@mail.shareable.org> References: <20050426093628.GA30208@infradead.org> <20050426094727.GA30379@infradead.org> <20050426131943.GC2226@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20050426201411.GA20109@elf.ucw.cz> <20050427092450.GB1819@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: pavel@suse.cz, hch@infradead.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, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:54185 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261662AbVD0Ocf (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:32:35 -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: > > > This is the controversial part in all it's glory: > > > > > > if (!(fc->flags & FUSE_ALLOW_OTHER) && current->fsuid != fc->user_id) > > > return -EACCES; > > > > > > Leaving it out would gain us what exactly? > > > > Well, if it brings us ugly semantics, keeping those two lines out for > > a while can help merge a lot... > > To the mount owner the semantics are quite normal. Others will be > denied access to the mountpoint, which doesn't introduce any new > semantics either. Why, exactly, is this check in the kernel and not the FUSE daemon? Someone said the FUSE daemon knows which user is making filesystem requests, and can therefore do this. Is it true? -- Jamie