From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [PATCH] private mounts Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:45:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20050424201356.GJ13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from rev.193.226.232.93.euroweb.hu ([193.226.232.93]:33689 "EHLO dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262410AbVDXUpy (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:45:54 -0400 To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk In-reply-to: <20050424201356.GJ13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (message from Al Viro on Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:13:56 +0100) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > > Comments are appreciated. If there are no vetoes agains the patch, I > > think it's suitable for -mm. > > Vetoed. Having suid application with different pathname resolution than > that of parent just because it is suid is not acceptable. I'm sorry, > but breaking hell knows how many existing applications is not an option. I'm pretty sure any suid program doing path resolution and other filesystem operations on _behalf_ of the original user will do them with fsuid, fsgid set to the original. Otherwise they are bound to break in other cases too (NFS export with root_sqash, etc). Have any counterexamples? Thanks, Miklos