From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Waitz Subject: Re: [RCF] [PATCH] unprivileged mount/umount Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:47:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20050504134717.GD3562@admingilde.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="81cS/AQiHTJECVaz" Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ericvh@gmail.com, smfrench@austin.rr.com, hch@infradead.org Return-path: Received: from faui3es.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ([131.188.33.16]:5561 "EHLO faui3es.informatik.uni-erlangen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261830AbVEDNtg (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 May 2005 09:49:36 -0400 To: Miklos Szeredi Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org --81cS/AQiHTJECVaz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hoi :) On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:31:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > This (lightly tested) patch against 2.6.12-rc* adds some > infrastructure and basic functionality for unprivileged mount/umount > system calls. most of this unprivileged mount policy can be handled by a suid userspace helper (e.g. pmount) what are the pros/cons of handling that in the kernel? --=20 Martin Waitz --81cS/AQiHTJECVaz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCeNJlj/Eaxd/oD7IRAi6rAJ4pPLJv2jbjJqvcBhcsvY4yrARmCQCeOUm8 os3F8qeMZOIdKx121zdinWU= =LVn/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --81cS/AQiHTJECVaz--