Re: [PATCH] private mounts

Miklos Szeredi
2005-04-24T20:46:00Z

> > 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