From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261503AbVGASEV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:04:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263417AbVGASEV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:04:21 -0400 Received: from frankvm.xs4all.nl ([80.126.170.174]:15031 "EHLO janus.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261503AbVGASEQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:04:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:04:15 +0200 From: Frank van Maarseveen To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: frankvm@frankvm.com, akpm@osdl.org, aia21@cam.ac.uk, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FUSE merging? Message-ID: <20050701180415.GA7755@janus> References: <20050630222828.GA32357@janus> <20050701092444.GA4317@janus> <20050701120028.GB5218@janus> <20050701130510.GA5805@janus> <20050701152003.GA7073@janus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Subliminal-Message: Use Linux! Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:04:50PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > I'm not saying this is a problem, but also I don't see any > overwhelming reason to not allow user mounts over non-leaf > directories. All things considered I'd still prefer forbidding FUSE mounts on non-leaf dirs. For name space sanity. And it may be easier to get the whole thing accepted: - One could argue that the existing name space is extended rather than changed [for a subset of processes], what Al Viro seems to reject. - The processes which cannot be ptraced/sent a signal by the mount owner are not "forced" to traverse the FUSE mount for the sake of name space invariancy, with all associated security problems: they can see everything up to the leaf node of all the usual mounts. But put otherwise: is there a compelling reason to permit FUSE mounts on non-leaf nodes? Can FUSE mount on a file like NFS? What is your opinion about replacing the ptrace check by a signal check (later on, no hurry)? -- Frank