From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] VFS: allow filesystem to override mknod capability checks Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:53:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20070921145356.GA16379@infradead.org> References: <20070921122343.307289079@szeredi.hu> <20070921123336.095183254@szeredi.hu> <20070921124504.GC8088@infradead.org> <20070921131409.GA9988@infradead.org> <20070921143338.GA14577@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:54887 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760752AbXIUOx5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:53:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 04:48:58PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Ah, OK. Well, that's what fuse would do with the above change. So > you are basically saying, the change is OK, but we want proper > unprivileged mounts first. Yes, that and that it should be a mount flag, not a file_system_type flag. > I'm sure we don't want it by default. > > For example if user bind mounts / onto /home/user/myroot (with 'nodev' > of couse), we still don't want mknod to work on that mount, for > obvious reasons. True, we'll have to deny it if there is any non-privilegued mount of the backing device possible. At this point it's getting rather nasty and I wonder whether it's really worth it..