Re: FUSE merging?

[Frank van Maarseveen <frankvm@frankvm.com>]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > You mean suid programs are never to touch paths passed to them?
> > 
> > never when euid==root.
> > The pathname could even point into /proc or anything else yet unknown,
> > e.g. by putting some symlinks at the right places. The mere act of
> > opening the file as root could have unwanted side effects already.
> 
> OK, open is out.  However other operations (stat, unlink, chmod etc)
> are always without side effects on "normal" filesystems.  However on
> FUSE they are very much unsafe (can block, not do what was instructed
> and return success, etc).

What about tricking a setuid program to stat into /auto (/mnt/auto,
/misc, whatever it is called)? then the automounter will act upon a root
request with again possibly unwanted side effects. See how careful a
setuid/full-root program must be in handling userdata including pathnames?

FUSE suddenly makes this more obvious but it is not new.

> > > > -	/proc isn't a problem: most root processes tend to avoid it because
> > > > 	it is synthetic and thus uninteresting. Maybe we should extend
> > > > 	the idea of "synthetic file-systems being uninteresting" to any
> > > > 	process which cannot receive signals from the FUSE mount owner. When
> > > > 	one cannot hide data by a FUSE mount and its synthetic anyway so not
> > > > 	interesting then just show the original empty mount point.
> > > 
> > > Been there.  People (like Al Viro) didn't like it.
> > 
> > including changing the ptraceability test by a signal test and including
> > the (IMHO) required emptyness of the mount stub?
> 
> It's been thrown out for the reason, that it's unacceptable if suid
> programs see a different namespace as non-suid.

You mean root versus non-root. or user versus other user I assume. Because
the euid (fsuid) is what matters.

But then: this _is_ already the case for NFS when squash_root is in effect
(what about kerberos et.al?). So there are several reasons to consider
FUSE a nonlocal fs instead of a local one so nothing new there. FUSE could
be used to implement a usable (not perfect) userspace NFS/ftp client.

To require an empty stub to mount FUSE upon makes the whole picture
cleaner: users are only able to extend the namespace _leaf_ nodes for
themselves and processes they can send signals to: setuid programs
which do not fully become root. The existing namespace [nodes] remains
unchanged for everyone.

-- 
Frank